Argo, I've really enjoyed these last 2 posts.
This is what I've come to on the word inerrancy. It may not be obvious, but pastors don't appeal to reason. They appeal to Biblical authority which they call inerrancy. Think about it.
Pastors typically don't teach/help/train congregants to learn or grow their reasoning/thinking muscle. Why? You might go wrong & that would be catastrophic. You don't ever want that to happen, do you? So what's the alternative, then? What you do MUST be interpretation based (typically called inerrancy of Bible). Who issues the interpretation? Whoever is in the pulpit.
It is this teaching that authoritative interpretation is required, and not an individual's God-given ability to reason. And it breeds the fear which causes us to let go of reason, knowing right vs. wrong, & to blindly follow unreasonable teaching. When inerrancy is used, it usually means stop thinking, my interpretation is correct.
This is why the word inerrancy is so important to doctrines which support spiritual authority/hierarchy. Think about it. Do you normally hear inerrancy discussed among believers who don't believe in spiritual authority/hierarchy? It's not because they are heretics & don't take the Bible seriously, as those who appeal to authority want everyone to believe.
Lighbulb: Truth outside of man's existence is evil has taken a while to grasp. This is what I think it means: So you (an individual) doesn't & can't know truth ON YOUR OWN. It has to come only from the Bible (external source). And then it has to be interpreted. It comes from somewhere else. This horrible belief denies conscience, Holy Spirit, being born with the knowledge of right & wrong, empathy, sympathy, happiness, etc. All aid us in knowing truth. Our loving God already equipped each one of us & it's up to us if we use what God gave us/what we have.
This horrible belief gives you nothing but total depravity, man is a worm, man is rotten to the core, man needs to be whipped into shape, you can't figure it out & don't try this at home.
One more: Tere is nothing good in man. If there is, it's Jesus doing it & not them.
Amom, I am loving your comments! You articulate it so well.
When I look back, I can see how the concept of inerrancy became so accepted and ingrained that people never really thought it through. There is a huge difference even between Inspired and Inerrant but even that was not allowed. The lines were drawn. If you did not accept inerrancy as truth then you were a "liberal". The lines drawn— many good decent thinking people had to leave.
So I have seen upclose the tyranny of "inerrancy".
BTW; Many refer to the Chicago statement on inerrancy as their belief. It was devised by some of the well known theologians out there. But it has some serious cognitive dissonance in it that makes you wonder if these theologians weren't some really good spin doctors. Article 10 is the one that really baffles me.
Huh? So, to what extent do these translations represent the "original" and how would we know since "the" original doesn't exist anymore? Talk about spin.
Wow. You are absolutely right. That's is some full on cognitive dissonance. It's almost as bad–as in, barely equivocated at all–as I have ever seen.
Your question, as usual, is merely answered by nodding in the general direction of "God's mystery".
Like I say, at the root of reformed theology is the separation of man from himself. The presence of the individual in any capacity at all completely topples the apple cart of "sound doctrine". Power is maintained in ALL collectivist ideologies by convincing humanity that the individual self is purely an illusion. Nay…a lie. An absolute extension of evil incarnate. There is no YOU in the bible narrative.
Which means that God never created humanity. Which means that God never created you. Which means you cannot possibly know God as Savior.
Do you see the devil at work here? This whole thing cries deception from the father of such farce.
And who are the authorities that so easily usurp God, by speaking on His behalf, to declare Article X?
Who made them the authority on what God is saying to man?
They can answer that God did. But they cannot answer how.
And the unanswerable " how" is the root of the inherent and all-consuming philosophical contradiction.
Who's on first? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
This is a guy who has a title of "ruling elder" in a Presbyterian church so I had to laugh. They take themselves way too seriously. And my take is they have to ask this because the Holy Spirit is AWOL. A mere pew peasant is not supposed to understand. They have to be told what to think/believe.
You see, they cherry pick the Psalms verses to shore up their determinism but then agree the next verse is a metaphor or else they look like idiots. They want the power to cherry pick and decide for us what is literal. But then, ignoring that Psalms are man talking to God in poetry.
One thing I have learned talking to Calvinists on blogs over the years is they have a fancy term/definition for every single cognitive dissonant thought/belief/contradiction. That is why they have been so successful. People are impressed at first, feel unable to debate their pseudo intellectualism and are intimidated. And mainly because it is confusing and it looks as if one needs some special understanding so they stick around and try while being fed the term "grace" and sovereignty as a constant diet. This is exactly how Calvin did it in Geneva.
But the internet, which the YRR used to grow, is NOW becoming their biggest albatross. The pew peasants are talking too much.
If they claim God told them that they have authority then they are no different than Charismatics whom most of them seem to despise. Do they not see . . . blind leading thr blind.
And the problem is…how does the "absolute and inerrant divine revelation" of Scripture get transferred into the minds and and lives of mortal man? If one man claims divine revelation as the source of his "knowledge", the source of his "truth"…well, fine, but that then that still leaves the rest of the masses who have NOT received divine revelation and thus have not been (somehow) integrated into the divine absolute truth.
I guess my question is: how does the ABSOLUTE knowledge of the "divine", which cannot be learned and is incompatible with humanity's existential moral failure become "translated" into a philosophy which the average layperson can efficaciously apply to their own lives? The barbarian masses are an anathema to the divine revelation, by their very existence according to the doctrine (their "sin nature" constantly denies and resists God's "truth"…hence the need for a Pastor-in-the-stead). Thus, there can be no inclusion of them into the truth of the perfect, absolute divine revelation. There will ALWAYS be an irreconcilable breach ween the "truth" which is outside of the layman and man himself. So, if the only means of transference is some mysteriously imputed ability to apprehend God's absolute "truth", this would mean that EVERYONE who claims to have "saving grace", or God's "truth" must be equally called and specially dispensed to receive the perfect revelation. Which means that any Pastor or Priest could never be in a position to claim authority over any other believer. Either one is an un-elected lost soul, or one is a wholly called and fully inspired receptacle of the "truth".
At what point does absolute truth become whittled down to fit man's mortal and inadequate existence and still be "absolute"? Answer: at NO point. The dichotomy is always man as SELF vs. absolute truth. Thus, there can be no claim to any hierarchy of "authority" without some serious gaping holes in the rationale.
Sorry that I am commenting so late but I have down with a nasty bug for the last several days. It's tough to comment when sleeping 20 hours a day.
Okay, I will answer your question: The standard of truth that I proclaim is Jesus Christ. He said on more than one occasion that he is the truth and I believe that. I am fairly certain that is what you are expecting me to say and you have a rebuttal prepared.
I am going to have to study your ideas on context a bit more because the central tenets of it still escape me. Very abstract stuff and not intuitive for me.
Of course many leaders in historic "Christendom" have used inerrancy to acquire power for themselves. This isn't too surprising. Men have been using any excuse to gain power over others since the dawn of time. Confucians, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists have all shown the desire to gain control. Just because something is abused isn't proof that it is bad.
Okay, you won't agree with I am about to say and I am not able to defend it. I know I am leaving myself open but what the heck. I have thought a lot about where the freedom in the United States came from, what is the "fountainhead?" I believe it is directly related to the Scripture becoming available to everyone without being filtered through a priest or pastor. The RC Church rightly feared the bible being translated into the native languages of the unwashed masses, they knew it would destroy their monopoly on power. I also know that Luther and Calvin were no Boy Scouts, they had no problem killing dissenters. When the people could read scripture for themselves it put limits on how far Christian "leaders" could push their power grabs. The ability to study scripture for oneself, and have confidence in it, is truly empowering. The U.S. took this farther than any other place on earth and I believe it shows.
I also don't believe that enlightenment intellectuals were a source of freedom as many contemporary atheists claim. The French Revolution was the fruit born of the Enlightenment tree and the blood flowed, there was no freedom. Ditto for the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc.
I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture but not the inerrancy of creeds, popes, priests, reformers, or anyone else. I'm running low on energy right now. I look forward to your next post.