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
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostAdrift, 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.
The Apostolic Constitutions, a fourth-century revision of the Didascalia (200-250 A.D) mentions it.
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.
Didymus the Blind (c. 310-398 AD) writes in his commentary on Ecclesiastes (c. 365):
Some scholars see some hint of the pericope in The Protoevangelium of James (c. 145 AD):
And then it's mentioned by later Christian writers in the later 4th and 5th centuries.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostI 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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostUnless I read it wrong I hold to the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. My view is the same as what you've described for yourself.
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostMy question is, where do (possible) interpolations stand in light of your view of Scripture?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Pentecost asked a question as opposed to trying to make a statement
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostI 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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).
Leave a comment:
-
Another Inerrancy Thread
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostThere are arguments that the verses from John 8 are interpolations too.Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI 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 PostWell 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 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.
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
4 responses
35 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-16-2024, 03:47 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
180 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-27-2024, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
339 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
356 responses
17,241 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 10:04 AM
|
Leave a comment: