University and Seminary School

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Those issues, such as inerrancy, creation, abortion, gay marriage tells you a lot about his theology and His commitment to biblical truth.  Pastors who are soft on gay marriage, preach evolution and refuse to take a stand on the moral issues of the day like abortion, are not going to be doctrinally  sound in other areas.

Rejecting inerrancy is the gateway to almost all of the things mentioned above, and is the hallmark of liberal Christianity.

Inerrency might only apply to the original manuscripts, which don't exist anymore. I prefer the term "Infallible", as God's word does not fail.

And I believe God created everything as He said. I just don't believe it was 6000 years ago, based on differences between the type of calendars the Ancient Hebrews used (lunar based), and what we use today (solar based). I also don't believe those who use genealogy to count back take into account that nothing in scripture says they are a complete genealogy, and therefore is a guess at best.

And I don't take a soft stance on homosexuality, but I also keep in mind that Jesus did not come to condemn the world and I won't either.

But none of these are issues directly related to salvation or the complete gospel message. I'm more interested in how a pastor understands salvation and the ways our relationship with Jesus plays out. You know, if we actually live as Jesus lived and do the things He did because He commanded us to do the things He did.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, CCole1983 said:

Inerrency might only apply to the original manuscripts, which don't exist anymore.

Inerrancy means that if the Bible said it happened, it happened and it happened the way the Bible says it happened.  The account of Genesis 1 is an inerrant account.   The story of Noah's Ark or the division of the Red Sea are both inerrant accounts.

Quote

I prefer the term "Infallible", as God's word does not fail.

Infallibility refers to the truth claims of Scripture, doctrinal matter.

 

Quote

And I believe God created everything as He said. I just don't believe it was 6000 years ago, based on differences between the type of calendars the Ancient Hebrews used (lunar based), and what we use today (solar based). I also don't believe those who use genealogy to count back take into account that nothing in scripture says they are a complete genealogy, and therefore is a guess at best.

I am not talking about the age of the earth.  I am talking about evolution.  Not the same issue.

Quote

And I don't take a soft stance on homosexuality, but I also keep in mind that Jesus did not come to condemn the world and I won't either.

Of course he didn't come to condemn the world;  the world is condemned already.

Quote

But none of these are issues directly related to salvation or the complete gospel message. I'm more interested in how a pastor understands salvation and the ways our relationship with Jesus plays out. You know, if we actually live as Jesus lived and do the things He did because He commanded us to do the things He did.

All of the truth claims of Scripture are embedded in inerrant historical and geographic fact, and that includes the Gospel.  Those who reject inerrancy, typically start picking apart other parts of the Bible they don't believe they can trust.   And many skeptics argue that if the Bible can't be trusted in Genesis, why should they trust other parts, like the Gospels.  Those who reject inerrancy, also tend to reject the miracles of Jesus and the sayings of Jesus, as well.  They question the overall historicity of Jesus and the Gospels in general.

So how one looks at issues like inerrancy has a direct impact on how we share the Gospel.  The claims of Christ are baked into an inerrant historical account, but if we hedge on the historicity of Scripture, we open up the Gospel to skeptics who will use that as a platform for rejecting the Gospel message.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

Infallibility refers to the truth claims of Scripture, doctrinal matter.

Well I define it as it is completely infallible in what it claims. I don't accept your definition.

Plus, I don't reject inerrancy. I believe it applies to the original manuscripts. But I also believe that though we don't have the original manuscripts anymore, the Truth is still conveyed completely, and we understand it fully by the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

[Guest shiloh357]

47 minutes ago, CCole1983 said:

Well I define it as it is completely infallible in what it claims. I don't accept your definition.

It's not my definition.  I didn't make that up. 

It is infallible in its truth claims, as that is what infallible means.  Inerrancy applies to the accuracy of its historical claims.  That is just basic doctrine 101.  In fact, the Bible's infallibility is embedded in its inerrancy.  If the historical facts of the Bible are wrong, then its infallibility doesn't really exist.  God preserves His word both in its historical claims and truth claims.
 

Quote

Plus, I don't reject inerrancy. I believe it applies to the original manuscripts. But I also believe that though we don't have the original manuscripts anymore, the Truth is still conveyed completely, and we understand it fully by the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

No, it's the doctrine of inspiration that applies to the original manuscripts, not inerrancy.   Pastors should know that.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Infallibility relies entirely on inerrancy.    I say this because places in Scripture like the book of Psalms, refers to stories about Israel in the wilderness, the parting of the Red Sea and other events, as evidence of God's faithfulness.   But if those events didn't happen, if they were myths, then God wasn't faithful and any claim that we can trust God on the grounds of mythical events that didn't happen is a fraudulent claim.

All of the truth claims of Scripture and the Gospel in particular, are rooted in inerrant historic and geographic fact and the lines of evidence occur in settings with  real places, real people and real events that we can verify historically and archeologically.   Even the truth claims of the Gospel is rooted in the historical fact of Jesus death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead.

Inerrancy is an important doctrine because the Bible is a unified book.  It is not disconnected with itself.   The Gospels are not disconnected from Genesis.  Even Jesus treated Genesis as historical.  Most of our Christian doctrines find their origin either directly or indirectly in Gen. 1-3, including the Gospel.  That fact alone demands a literal interpretation of Genesis.