Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Another Inerrancy Thread

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

  • Another Inerrancy Thread

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    There are arguments that the verses from John 8 are interpolations too.
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I agree. I think it probably does reflect an authentic event but because the earliest manuscripts don't have the passage it's safest not to firmly base any doctrine on it.
    Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
    Well it's interesting I suppose. It depends on your view on the Bible and whether you think all the passages are influenced by God or not. i.e. How much stock do you put into that the Bible is written by God through the hands of others.
    I am not asking for an argument about whether to hold to inerancy or not per se, but there seems to be some subtle distinctions being made by the three of us.

    I had in mind that Scripture is inerrant in the original autographs so that if it is an interpolation (as I've been informed somewhere, not quite sure where) then while it may be true, it wouldn't be part of the original autograph and therefore not holy Scripture, at best a reliable account.

    KG supported my conclusion but seemed to do so from a more sophisticated standpoint that seemed to make the doctrine of inerrancy irrelevant to whether he believed those verses or not.

    Darth Ovious made a point that seemed vague and to sort of ignore us. I'm not sure that was their intention, I coupd have simply misunderstood though.

    My question is, where do (possible) interpolations stand in light of your view of Scripture? Whether you're liberal on this matter, or fully hold to the Chicago Statement.

    God bless. Please remember the fruit of the Spirit as you post.
    Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

  • #2
    I suppose one could make an argument that when the church finalized the canon, it did so with the extended versions of John and of Mark included, so that whether or not they should have, they make the cut. In my experience, Protestants are generally quick to dismiss the extended ending of Mark, I think largely because they don't want a prooftext for snake handling included (I don't think this would constitute a prooftext for snakehandling, as I have explained elsewhere, but I don't want to derail)... but not as quick to dismiss John 8. (I have seen some people be fairly upfront about wanting John 8 gone because they want to be able to support capital punishment).

    This sort of contradicts what I said earlier but I'm still working through the issue.

    Under this paradigm, we would still be okay to exclude 1 John 5:7-8 because this was a much later addition (it didn't show up much until the 15th century).
    "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


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
      I am not asking for an argument about whether to hold to inerancy or not per se, but there seems to be some subtle distinctions being made by the three of us.

      I had in mind that Scripture is inerrant in the original autographs so that if it is an interpolation (as I've been informed somewhere, not quite sure where) then while it may be true, it wouldn't be part of the original autograph and therefore not holy Scripture, at best a reliable account.

      KG supported my conclusion but seemed to do so from a more sophisticated standpoint that seemed to make the doctrine of inerrancy irrelevant to whether he believed those verses or not.

      Darth Ovious made a point that seemed vague and to sort of ignore us. I'm not sure that was their intention, I coupd have simply misunderstood though.

      My question is, where do (possible) interpolations stand in light of your view of Scripture? Whether you're liberal on this matter, or fully hold to the Chicago Statement.

      God bless. Please remember the fruit of the Spirit as you post.
      Unless I read it wrong I hold to the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. My view is the same as what you've described for yourself.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        Unless I read it wrong I hold to the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. My view is the same as what you've described for yourself.
        Yeah
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          I refer toy Scripture as Sacred. It is. The words are reliable. Are they perfect and 100 percent accurate no. But God spoke through men and we can be certain that His words are available and making scripture sacred writings. While physical inaccuracies exist the accounts are accurate and spiritually the interpretation of scripture is inerrant. Morally scripture is also inerrant. Though be cautious to read for cultural expectations and experience. I believe this best describes the Scriptures.
          A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
          George Bernard Shaw

          Comment


          • #6
            Pentecost asked a question as opposed to trying to make a statement
            "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


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
              My question is, where do (possible) interpolations stand in light of your view of Scripture?
              It depends on the interpolation. Take for instance the Pericope Adulterae. Though not in the earliest manuscripts, the early church (Papias, the Didascalia, Didymus the Blind, Jerome, etc.) seem somewhat familiar with a story that fits the general narrative. The embarrassing nature of a passage that seems to suggest that Jesus did not condemn someone caught in the act of adultery could have made it unpopular to the growing church, and so it might have been excised early on because of that reason. Likely it did not originate with John's gospel, but some suppose a Lukan origin is possible. The Comma Johanneum I don't think can be as easily supported. I don't know if it was originally a scribal marginal note accidentally inserted into the text, or if it was a purposeful trinitarian apologetic, or what. The early church evidence for it seems scant, and unconvincing.

              That said, the fact that certain passages may or may not have been interpolated does not greatly affect my belief in Biblical inerrancy, and I mostly agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in regards to the original autographs. I don't think there are any major doctrines that are affected by the absence of clear interpolations.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                Unless I read it wrong I hold to the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. My view is the same as what you've described for yourself.
                I think I must've miscommunicated, I wasn't trying to say I didn't hold to the Chicago Statement, I was asking a question as KG said.

                Thank you for the responses.

                KG: The point about these issue verses being accepted as canon is a good point, it is important to remember they already went through a vetting process and ultimately passed.

                On the matter of the extended part of Mark, I am honestly more open to that than I am John 8 because 9-16 are all retelling Gospel accounts, while 17-20 reads much like Acts accounts. Whereas John 7:53-8:11 in a wholly new story to the Bible.

                So Cath for you, there is error other than the commonly known interpolations but it's okay because they are reasonably accurate? Is that correct? Then you continue that spiritually the interpretations are inerrant, whose interpretation? The Magisterium?

                Adrift, I was not aware that early church fathers knew of a story like the Pericope Adulterae. I believe you but I hope you will provide a citation, I am lacking entirely too much knowledge on this subject for my liking.

                I had to look up the Comma Johanneum because it doesn't even appear in my ESV Study Bible.

                I also know of no doctrine that would be effected by the removal of these passages
                Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                  I think I must've miscommunicated, I wasn't trying to say I didn't hold to the Chicago Statement, I was asking a question as KG said.

                  Thank you for the responses.

                  KG: The point about these issue verses being accepted as canon is a good point, it is important to remember they already went through a vetting process and ultimately passed.

                  On the matter of the extended part of Mark, I am honestly more open to that than I am John 8 because 9-16 are all retelling Gospel accounts, while 17-20 reads much like Acts accounts. Whereas John 7:53-8:11 in a wholly new story to the Bible.

                  So Cath for you, there is error other than the commonly known interpolations but it's okay because they are reasonably accurate? Is that correct? Then you continue that spiritually the interpretations are inerrant, whose interpretation? The Magisterium?

                  Adrift, I was not aware that early church fathers knew of a story like the Pericope Adulterae. I believe you but I hope you will provide a citation, I am lacking entirely too much knowledge on this subject for my liking.

                  I had to look up the Comma Johanneum because it doesn't even appear in my ESV Study Bible.

                  I also know of no doctrine that would be effected by the removal of these passages
                  I'm the one who wasn't clear. I'm saying that unless I read the Chicago Statement wrong, I agree with it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                    Adrift, I was not aware that early church fathers knew of a story like the Pericope Adulterae. I believe you but I hope you will provide a citation, I am lacking entirely too much knowledge on this subject for my liking.
                    Sure, in about 324 AD Eusebius mentions a story by Papias (70-163 AD) about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord.

                    Source: Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, Chapter 39. The Writings of Papias.

                    16. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    The Apostolic Constitutions, a fourth-century revision of the Didascalia (200-250 A.D) mentions it.

                    Source: Apostolic Constitutions, Book II, Section 3, XXIV

                    And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and had gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: Go your way therefore, for neither do I condemn you. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07152.htm

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Ben Witherington suggests an even earlier hint of the "language and ideas" of the Pericope in The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 90 AD). In particular he seems to have the following passage in mind, though I don't really see it unless this is an example of the embarrassment early Christians might have had with the Pericope.

                    Source: The Shepherd of Hermas, Book II, Commandment 4, Chapter 1

                    I charge you, said he, to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another man's wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart, then you will sin; and if, in like manner, you think other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked deed, he works death for himself. Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man. I said to him, Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions. Say on, said he. And I said to him, Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her? And he said to me, As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery. And I said to him, What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? And he said, The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery. And I said to him, What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband? And he said to me, Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. Moreover, adultery is committed not only by those who pollute their flesh, but by those who imitate the heathen in their actions. Wherefore if any one persists in such deeds, and repents not, withdraw from him, and cease to live with him, otherwise you are a sharer in his sin. Therefore has the injunction been laid on you, that you should remain by yourselves, both man and woman, for in such persons repentance can take place. But I do not, said he, give opportunity for the doing of these deeds, but that he who has sinned may sin no more. But with regard to his previous transgressions, there is One who is able to provide a cure; for it is He, indeed, who has power over all.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Didymus the Blind (c. 310-398 AD) writes in his commentary on Ecclesiastes (c. 365):

                    Source: The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus by Chris Keith, BRILL, 2009

                    We find, therefore, in certain gospels . . . . A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The saviour, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, "He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her." And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Some scholars see some hint of the pericope in The Protoevangelium of James (c. 145 AD):

                    Source: The Protoevangelium of James

                    16. And the priest said: Give up the virgin whom you received out of the temple of the Lord. And Joseph burst into tears. And the priest said: I will give you to drink of the water of the ordeal of the Lord, and He shall make manifest your sins in your eyes. And the priest took the water, and gave Joseph to drink and sent him away to the hill-country; and he returned unhurt. And he gave to Mary also to drink, and sent her away to the hill-country; and she returned unhurt. And all the people wondered that sin did not appear in them. And the priest said: If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins, neither do I judge you. And he sent them away. And Joseph took Mary, and went away to his own house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    And then it's mentioned by later Christian writers in the later 4th and 5th centuries.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I tend to like and run with the interpretations of the early church Fathers. Partly because while each of them has some subtle disagreement there tends to be a general agreement about what is necessary and correct for salvation. These are the things that have made and been preserved as orthodox with the apostolic Church es Rcc and orthodox churches and tend to be recognized by grad Protestantism. E.g foundationally the Nicene creed.
                      A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                      George Bernard Shaw

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Ana Dragule, 11-13-2020, 01:47 AM
                      2 responses
                      32 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post seanD
                      by seanD
                       
                      Started by Thoughtful Monk, 11-11-2020, 03:18 PM
                      5 responses
                      48 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post Christian3  
                      Started by mossrose, 11-08-2020, 03:50 PM
                      1 response
                      29 views
                      5 likes
                      Last Post Sparko
                      by Sparko
                       
                      Started by Faber, 11-06-2020, 11:51 AM
                      1 response
                      5 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Faber
                      by Faber
                       
                      Started by DesertBerean, 11-02-2020, 02:57 PM
                      Working...
                      X