New Testament Inerrancy

[Still Alive]

6 minutes ago, Davida said:

I think your view is the postmodernist one applied to Christianity & spirituality.  Postmodernists are progressive liberals in their views , they do Not believe in Absolute Truth- nor that the Bible alone is spiritually & historically reliable , inerrant and infallible. 

Based on your definition, I'm not a post-modernist. Quite the opposite, in fact.

BTW, I'm a huge fan of Jordan Peterson.:)

[Willie T]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I didn't say he was "ignorant."  I am saying that he has an ignorance of the subject matter.   Used that way, it is not a pejorative.  

But yes, inerrancy has ONE meaning and only ONE meaning as a doctrine.  That is not my view; that is just how it is.   There are things like this that are simply true because they are true.   

It would be like me rejecting the truth that the earth revolves around the sun.   There are some things that true and if they are rejected, it is the product of a willful ignorance.

That is so pitifully weak.  If you feel a person is lacking understanding about a subject, you say that,  However, if you are trying to push it to the level of slamming someone while slippery staying within some arbitrary "Christian Rules" (or forum rules), you deliberately choose the word "ignorance" in some form or another, and hope God didn't notice your intent.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Still Alive said:

That further clarifies to me the confusion. I don't get into doctrinal labels.

Well, that doesn't matter.  We are dealing with a doctrine and you are going to have to face doctrinal labels in a doctrinal discussion.   That's the nature of things.  

 

Quote

I see now that you are using the "bible doctrine club" interpretation of "Inerrancy" with a capital "I". It doesn't just have a definition. I suspect it has a multi paragraph explanation.

Inerrancy is  a biblical doctrine.  Inerrancy means without error and it applies to the historical claims made in the Bible.   You are trying to artificially broaden the definition to include translational errors and that is not what inerrancy pertains to.  

 

Quote

Thing is, I'm not part of that club.

It's not a "club"  any more than believing the earth revolves around the sun puts us in a heliocentric "club."  This is reality and you need to accommodate that fact.

Quote

Doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the bible and the teachings of Christ.

It just means I don't know the secret hand signals of that particular club. I think the disciples had a similar problem with folks like Saul of Tarsus in their day as well.

No, they didn't.   The problem is that you want, as I have noted in the past, to interpret and approach the Bible on your own terms.    That's ususally how false teachings start.  

You either don't know what you are talking about, or you are intentionally trying to muddy the waters on the issue and either way, you are simply wrong.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Willie T said:

That is so pitifully weak.  If you feel a person is lacking understanding about a subject, you say that,  However, if you are trying to push it to the level of slamming someone while slippery staying within some arbitrary "Christian Rules" (or forum rules), you deliberately choose the word "ignorance" in some form or another, and hope God didn't notice your intent.

I used the term to simply refer to a lack of knowledge and not as a pejorative to say he is a dumb person.   You obviously have nothing important or substantive to offer.  

[Guest shiloh357]

44 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I think you just like to argue.:D

Edit: FWIW, calling someone else a liar is not really the high road in any debate/discussion. And watering it down with phrases like "you were deceptive" doesn't water it down at all.

Yes, it does hold water and it was a dishonest response which became more obvious when I sought clarification on exactly what "agreement" meant and you choked on that.   So you are still holding to the same view I was refuting before and you had not changed at all, so we were not in agreement as you claimed. 

[Still Alive]

17 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, you said that you and I were in agreement, but you purposefully left out what you still disagree with me about.  

What I did was purposefully say what we were in agreement on.

Thing is, I'm actually trying not to be argumentative.  This thread is good training for me.

[Still Alive]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Well, that doesn't matter.  We are dealing with a doctrine and you are going to have to face doctrinal labels in a doctrinal discussion.   That's the nature of things.  

You say doctrine, I say belief. You say potato, I say potahto.

If you get my drift.

 

Here's the thing: I really try to avoid "Christian speak". I like to use words in my vernacular that non-Christians understand. The Christian-ese talk really confuses non-Christians - or worse. Often it just shuts them down to any reasonable discussion.

But that's just me. We all use our own personal methodologies and gifts.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Still Alive

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

What I did was purposefully say what we were in agreement on.

No, you were purposefully holding back what you disagreed with me on.  You didn't qualify your comment, so I sought clarification on precisely what were in agreement on.   And that is how I found the truth.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

You say doctrine, I say belief. You say potato, I say potahto.

If you get my drift.

No, those are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable.  Again, demonstrating that you don't really know what you're talking about.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Heh, you're really doubling down on it.

"You go girl! (Or guy, whichever you are - you go!)

You seem desperate to parse my words in such a way that surely you can find SOMETHING we disagree on. Do you prefer your pizza thick or thin crust?

I am not parsing anything at all.