Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary thread: Tyrel vs Paprika on inerrancy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    RBerman,

    Since you asked in the Shoutbox yesterday, I will be continuing in this thread. Life and work have been pretty crazy this week, so I'm trying to avoid posting as much as possible. It takes me too long to craft responses sometimes, and I don't want to shortchange this discussion if I can help it.

    In the meantime, can you elaborate on what you consider included as being "Christ's ambassador"? To my knowledge, being an ambassador is certainly a recognition of special authority, but I don't view it as equal.

    We agree on Jesus' claims to authority.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
      RBerman,

      Since you asked in the Shoutbox yesterday, I will be continuing in this thread. Life and work have been pretty crazy this week, so I'm trying to avoid posting as much as possible. It takes me too long to craft responses sometimes, and I don't want to shortchange this discussion if I can help it.

      In the meantime, can you elaborate on what you consider included as being "Christ's ambassador"? To my knowledge, being an ambassador is certainly a recognition of special authority, but I don't view it as equal.

      We agree on Jesus' claims to authority.
      An ambassador speaks with the authority of the one who sent him. He is charged with only saying that which is agreeable to the one who sent him. So his authority, while derivative, is to be treated as the same, in the ears of his hearers.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        Looking at the whole of Jesus' teachings, it seems clear that when it's said that Jesus "taught as one who had authority" (Matt 7:29), the authority in question is divine in origin rather than human. As you say, that's partly why the Pharisees accused him of blasphemy. Jesus said that anyone who ignored his words would face disaster (Matt 7:24-27). It was his way or the highway; no other authority on earth was equal. So yes, Jesus does indeed lay claim to God's authority. That's why the wrath of God abides on anyone who does not obey the Son (John 3:36).
        As I mentioned before, we agree that Jesus lays claim to God's authority. What's more important here, though, is the difference between Jesus and Paul. Jesus not only lays claim to God's authority, every action he takes is with the presumption of that authority. That's drastically different from Paul.


        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        Does Paul claim that same sort of power? He does, regularly. Even while admitting his weakness of speech in 1 Cor 2:1-5, Paul reminds the Corinthians that his "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" before them should make them heed his message. When Paul calls himself Christ's ambassador (2 Cor 5:20), he's saying that his own words should be treated as Christ's words. They are to "regard [him], as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." (1 Cor 4:1) When he speaks, he reveals God's will and must be heeded. At the end of 1 Cor 4, Paul threatens, if necessary, to return to Corinth and exercise fatherly discipline upon any who don't toe his line.
        The problem with quoting segments of verses is that they lose context. Look at 1 Cor 2:1-5 which you partially quoted:

        Source: 1 Cor 2

        And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men[c] but in the power of God.

        © Copyright Original Source



        It's pretty clear that the context is past tense. I've quoted the ESV here (and will generally stick to that translation), but others show the same. Paul isn't speaking of his writings here, but in reference to the message he originally brought. Further, he states explicitly in 1 Cor 4 how he should be regarded.

        Source: 1 Cor 4

        This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

        © Copyright Original Source



        If there were ever a time for Paul to claim such authority explicitly, it would have been here. Servants and stewards, that is what he says. That's the special authority, but it's not equal authority.


        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        The only time I can think of that Paul states an opinion that's not meant to be binding is in 1 Cor 7:6-7. "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." But his "I, not the Lord" is not such a concession.
        You should have kept reading in 1 Cor 7, then.


        Source: 1 Cor 7

        6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

        8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

        10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

        12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
        17 Only let each person lead the life[c] that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.25 Now concerning[g] the betrothed,[h] I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

        39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

        © Copyright Original Source



        We see here several instances where Paul is quite clearly speaking on his own judgment. Yes, he adds in Verse 40 the claim to special authority, but notice the distinction between that and Verse 10.

        I mentioned ex cathedra before, and it's relevance remains here. We see particular places where Paul claims authority similar to Verse 10. The majority of his writings, though, are not written with that expression. Rather, the specific call out in Verse 10 is the exception, not the rule. There's little doubt that Paul considered himself in a position of authority, but that's insufficient to establish it as inerrant (let alone Paul believing it to be inerrant).


        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        It's simply identifying that Paul is speaking of his own authority, as Christ's ambassador and the steward of God's mysteries, rather than repeating a previously known saying of Christ.
        Such is your claim, but you haven't actually supported it. You still need to show where and how Paul references known sayings of Christ. For that matter, we can't even address whether or not Christ actually said it (as in known or unknown to us), since we don't have complete transcripts. Paul could just as easily be repeating an known yet unrecorded saying of Christ when he says "not I, but the Lord".


        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        An ambassador speaks with the authority of the one who sent him. He is charged with only saying that which is agreeable to the one who sent him. So his authority, while derivative, is to be treated as the same, in the ears of his hearers.
        This, I think, is part of the problem. An ambassador represents, but does not possess the same authority as, a sovereign. Yes, such an ambassador is trusted to say things agreeable to the sovereign, but there's no particular investment that guarantees the ambassador infallibility. There's no question that God would be capable of providing such investment, but the issue under discussion is whether or not Paul actually claims that he's received such investment. While we definitely have examples where he explicitly does so, there's nothing that conclusively shows this applied to all of his teachings. If Paul thought such, why does he feel the need to clarify in those few verses we do have? Why are those few verses all we have among his writings?
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          As I mentioned before, we agree that Jesus lays claim to God's authority. What's more important here, though, is the difference between Jesus and Paul. Jesus not only lays claim to God's authority, every action he takes is with the presumption of that authority. That's drastically different from Paul.
          I have already identified one instance in which Paul explicitly says he's not speaking an authoritative command. For that matter, Jesus says that God's own instructions on divorce are something of a concession to the hardness of human hearts, rather than the actual best for the situation. Paul's authority is clearly derivative due to his role as servant, ambassador, etc. of God. Even Jesus, despite his goodhood, claims authority derivative from God, as opposed to independent authority (John 5)

          The problem with quoting segments of verses is that they lose context. Look at 1 Cor 2:1-5 which you partially quoted:

          Source: 1 Cor 2

          And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men[c] but in the power of God.

          © Copyright Original Source



          It's pretty clear that the context is past tense. I've quoted the ESV here (and will generally stick to that translation), but others show the same. Paul isn't speaking of his writings here, but in reference to the message he originally brought.
          It is indeed past tense. That would be relevant if Paul formerly claimed an authority which he had subsequently denied or foregone. That does not appear to be the case, however, as evidenced by all the rebukes he gives the Corinthians, including a threat to come back and straighten them out in an unpleasant fashion.

          Further, he states explicitly in 1 Cor 4 how he should be regarded.

          Source: 1 Cor 4

          This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

          © Copyright Original Source



          If there were ever a time for Paul to claim such authority explicitly, it would have been here. Servants and stewards, that is what he says. That's the special authority, but it's not equal authority.
          Equal to whom? Paul ontologically does not possess authority independent of God, to be sure. His authority is completely derivative of God's authority, but the whole "God's servant" bit is his way of saying that when he speaks, it's to be treated as God speaking, and he's not accountable to any human court.

          You should have kept reading in 1 Cor 7, then. We see here several instances where Paul is quite clearly speaking on his own judgment. Yes, he adds in Verse 40 the claim to special authority, but notice the distinction between that and Verse 10.

          I mentioned ex cathedra before, and it's relevance remains here. We see particular places where Paul claims authority similar to Verse 10. The majority of his writings, though, are not written with that expression. Rather, the specific call out in Verse 10 is the exception, not the rule. There's little doubt that Paul considered himself in a position of authority, but that's insufficient to establish it as inerrant (let alone Paul believing it to be inerrant).
          Verse 40 is not a command at all; it's Paul's opinion as to which state is happier: marriage or celibacy.


          Such is your claim, but you haven't actually supported it. You still need to show where and how Paul references known sayings of Christ. For that matter, we can't even address whether or not Christ actually said it (as in known or unknown to us), since we don't have complete transcripts. Paul could just as easily be repeating an known yet unrecorded saying of Christ when he says "not I, but the Lord".
          That is exactly right. Verse 10 describes a known saying of Christ which is not recorded in any of the Gospels. Paul may do something similar in his account of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11), depending on where you think the quotation marks end in that passage, and Paul's own comments begin.

          This, I think, is part of the problem. An ambassador represents, but does not possess the same authority as, a sovereign. Yes, such an ambassador is trusted to say things agreeable to the sovereign, but there's no particular investment that guarantees the ambassador infallibility. There's no question that God would be capable of providing such investment, but the issue under discussion is whether or not Paul actually claims that he's received such investment. While we definitely have examples where he explicitly does so, there's nothing that conclusively shows this applied to all of his teachings. If Paul thought such, why does he feel the need to clarify in those few verses we do have? Why are those few verses all we have among his writings?
          An ambassador does not ontologically possess his own power as a sovereign does. But the purpose of an ambassador is to speak the sovereign's words to someone. So yes, Paul is precisely claiming to have such an "investment" that obedience shown to him is obedience to God, and disobedience likewise.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            I have already identified one instance in which Paul explicitly says he's not speaking an authoritative command. For that matter, Jesus says that God's own instructions on divorce are something of a concession to the hardness of human hearts, rather than the actual best for the situation. Paul's authority is clearly derivative due to his role as servant, ambassador, etc. of God. Even Jesus, despite his goodhood, claims authority derivative from God, as opposed to independent authority (John 5)
            Suffice to say that there are many ways to have derivative authority, and that any real comparison between Paul and Jesus won't get very far.


            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            It is indeed past tense. That would be relevant if Paul formerly claimed an authority which he had subsequently denied or foregone. That does not appear to be the case, however, as evidenced by all the rebukes he gives the Corinthians, including a threat to come back and straighten them out in an unpleasant fashion.
            Not quite. It's relevant because you're citing the past tense as evidence of present tense authority. That's not a given. More importantly, 1 Cor. Chapter 2 doesn't in any way imply authority but rather states that anything beyond the "weakness and in fear and much trembling" were actually a "demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men[c] but in the power of God."


            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            Equal to whom? Paul ontologically does not possess authority independent of God, to be sure. His authority is completely derivative of God's authority, but the whole "God's servant" bit is his way of saying that when he speaks, it's to be treated as God speaking, and he's not accountable to any human court.
            Equal to God. That's the point of inerrancy, after all. This last statement is just assertion and needs backing up.


            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            Verse 40 is not a command at all; it's Paul's opinion as to which state is happier: marriage or celibacy.
            Yes, exactly. You said "the only time I can think of that Paul states an opinion that's not meant to be binding is in 1 Cor 7:6-7." To which, I supplied multiple verses which also show Paul stating an opinion.


            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            That is exactly right. Verse 10 describes a known saying of Christ which is not recorded in any of the Gospels. Paul may do something similar in his account of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11), depending on where you think the quotation marks end in that passage, and Paul's own comments begin.
            So...you're trying to tell me that you know Paul is citing a known-to-Paul saying of Christ which is not known-to-us. How, exactly, do you think to prove that? In fact, this manner of assertion is the same basis you've used for multiple claims. They're opinions only and not supportable by the text.


            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            An ambassador does not ontologically possess his own power as a sovereign does. But the purpose of an ambassador is to speak the sovereign's words to someone. So yes, Paul is precisely claiming to have such an "investment" that obedience shown to him is obedience to God, and disobedience likewise.
            As I said, you need to show why, if Paul thought he always possessed such investment, he felt the need to clarify at particular points. If he truly thought in such a manner, he would be more likely to act and talk with the presumption of authority similar to how Jesus does. He would never need fear the accusation of blasphemy because he would have a guarantee of infallibility through the investment.
            Last edited by Carrikature; 03-19-2014, 12:23 AM.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              Suffice to say that there are many ways to have derivative authority, and that any real comparison between Paul and Jesus won't get very far.
              It only needs to get far enough that the ambassador is treated as if he speaks the commands of the sovereign whom he represents.

              Not quite. It's relevant because you're citing the past tense as evidence of present tense authority. That's not a given. More importantly, 1 Cor. Chapter 2 doesn't in any way imply authority but rather states that anything beyond the "weakness and in fear and much trembling" were actually a "demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
              1 Corinthians, typical of Paul's epistles, opens with a remnder that he is αποστολος -- the emissary of a potentate. He brings not just wise counsel, but authoritative instructions.

              So...you're trying to tell me that you know Paul is citing a known-to-Paul saying of Christ which is not known-to-us. How, exactly, do you think to prove that?
              That is what we have been talking about. Paul tells us that it is something said by "Not I, but the Lord," which is Paul's standard term for Jesus. This does not just mean that it is a command that Jesus would endorse; if that were so, Paul's letters would be constantly littered by that phrase. A reasonable alternative is that Paul is quoting not just something that Jesus would say, but something that Jesus actually did say.

              As I said, you need to show why, if Paul thought he always possessed such investment, he felt the need to clarify at particular points. If he truly thought in such a manner, he would be more likely to act and talk with the presumption of authority similar to how Jesus does. He would never need fear the accusation of blasphemy because he would have a guarantee of infallibility through the investment.
              jesus himself was accused of blasphemy by naysayers, and he spoke of how often God's prophets were treated poorly, so I see no reason Paul would be excluded from the need to reassert his delegated authority.

              Comment


              • #37
                The fact remains that the Bible has error in light of the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV, ESV, RSV). 2 Kings 8:26 says "Ahaziah was 22 when he began to rule"; however, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Ahaziah was 42 when he began to rule." For sure, 22 and 42 are not same.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
                  The fact remains that the Bible has error in light of the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV, ESV, RSV). 2 Kings 8:26 says "Ahaziah was 22 when he began to rule"; however, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Ahaziah was 42 when he began to rule." For sure, 22 and 42 are not same.
                  Yeah, we get inerrancy of the Bible is your hobby horse. What you don't seem to grasp is that there probably isn't a single Christian here who accepts your doctrine of inspiration.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Yeah, we get inerrancy of the Bible is your hobby horse. What you don't seem to grasp is that there probably isn't a single Christian here who accepts your doctrine of inspiration.
                    Hebrews 6:18 says "it is impossible for God to lie" and 2 Samuel 7:28 says "Your (GOD) words are true" hence, the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 cannot be from God and hence both verses cannot not inspired.
                    Last edited by Same Hakeem; 06-10-2018, 05:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Yeah, we get inerrancy of the Bible is your hobby horse. What you don't seem to grasp is that there probably isn't a single Christian here who accepts your doctrine of inspiration.
                      Probably one.
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
                        Hebrews 6:18 says "it is impossible for God to lie" and 2 Samuel 7:28 says "Your (GOD) words are true" hence, the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 cannot be from God and hence both verses cannot not inspired.
                        Yeah, and? How is someone making a mistake copying down words centuries after the fact a lie?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          Yeah, and? How is someone making a mistake copying down words centuries after the fact a lie?
                          Making a mistake in relation to the age of Ahaziah when began to rule (i.e. 2 Chronicles 22:2 vs. 2 Kings 8:26) proves that Bible is not fully inspired by God. According to 2 Samuel 7:28, God inspired revelation cannot have contradictions or false information as illustrated between 2 Chronicles 22:2 vs. 2 Kings 8:26.
                          Last edited by Same Hakeem; 06-12-2018, 12:53 PM.

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X