Because The Bible Tells Me So

In this thread, I want to examine some of the philosophiesof the Bible that many people accept as inerrant and examine whether or not they are worthy of consideration.(add by edit: Also theologically as opposed to philosophically! Some examples:

Consider others better than yourself.

​

Turn the other cheek

​

The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

​

Whatever you do unto the least of these you do to me. (Jesus talking)

​

Any scriptures are open for discussion.

​

Faith/Belief?

​

Edited by Phat, : emphasis on theology rather than philosophy

I agree. I am not saying that the Bible is Inerrant.
Here is an example of what I define to be a Biblical truism: Prov 3:5--

​

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding; I realize that I am approaching the Bible from the perspective of how some would say....a giant quote-mine! Good point, Ringo. I have always maintained that some folks believe that the source of all human knowledge is human derived while others of us believe that the source of wisdom is God-derived...but you are correct in pointing out that we could never prove it since it is evident that we are human! From the standpoint of this thread, the Bible is being discussed as a source of philosophy. A fundamentalist may believe the book to be inerrant while a liberal critically thinking person may view the book as simply a collection of writings.My stance in this thread is that while the book is not strictly innerrant, it is a source of wisdom and philosophy for many people. Given that this is so, I want to argue the position of why certain Biblically quote mined catch-phrases are used.Are these pearls of wisdom...uttered by Jesus Christ and by supposedly spiritually enlightened Biblical authors such as David (Psalms) Solomon (Proverbs) and Saul aka Paul (Many New Testament Books) relevant as a philosophy and as a world view in modern life? While you may be correct in that there are many fundamentalists who simply do not think, I feel that by discussing Biblical Quotes...be they taken out of context or not---will give us an opportunity to discuss why the quotes that we revere are revered by us. Good point, and it offers me the opportunity to use a mined quote in my defense. (BTW...I am not suggesting that by using Biblical Quotes I am in any way occupying a moral high ground!) This is IMHO a good bit of philosophy. A person can never get in too much trouble by being humble! Good example! The first quote suggests that Paul wanted the church to draw a distinction in behaviorism. As an example, I may have many rowdy friends who still love to smoke a dozen bongs and drink a case of beer. I may well go over and see them occasionally and show them as much love as I show to anyone in the "church". (I try not to be exclusivist!) If I were to sit around and do bongs with them, I would be angering my Holy Spouse! This is not an admonishment to any of you...it is just a personal thing with me...please understand.The second quote is keeping in line with Pauls discipline of the church and...the role of the church in regards to exclusivism. (Exclusivism is a topic unto itself! )This brings up the opportunity for another quote! Jesus is praying in John 17. He mentions this in His prayer: This is another example of exclusivity. Jesus apparently is pointing out that there is a difference...internally and spiritually...between those whom He chose as Disciples and the rest of humanity. I am not nearly as much of an exclusioner as I used to be, but I have experienced times when I was walking in my tip-top behavior and considered myself in touch with Jesus mission. I could feel a difference between myself and many other everyday people that I encountered. (Again, this is another topic. Keyword: Exclusivity. )Perhaps we are showing how a staunch adherence to Fundamentalist Biblical philosophy promotes a sense of privilege and exclusivity in the church community. My question would then become: Well what do you expect us to do? Go around and let it all hang out...cussing and drinking and laughing at dirty jokes? Another Quote popped into my head as an answer: This seems like good advice as long as I don't get all uppity about it! I could see this philosophy as being of God. I mean, does He expect me to conform to my evil desires?Doddy, I know you understand the Bible better than most fundamentalists and that you have chosen to follow your own philosophy in life and not that of this book. And I know that because of this, you are not necessarily following your own "evil" desires just because you do not worship God.This could mean that This quote presupposes that morality and the knowledge of right and wrong are imparted into all peoples hearts whether or not they are believers.Of course, there is also a contrasting scripture: On the one hand, the book is telling us that all humanity has an innate awareness of right and wrong. On the other hand, Jesus is telling us that our heart is apparantly the source of it all. This seems to suggest that our behavior and intentions is what allows our heart to be filled with what we want it to be filled with.

Welcome to EvC, Yohuchanan562! You must come from a church that really respects and revere the Lords name! Out of your list of scriptures, I had one jump out at me: This one seems to mean that nobody does any real good in and of themselves...but that it is Gods Spirit within us that makes any good thing happen at all. Perhaps an atheist would take offense to this, but I am coming at it from the view of a-priori and a positive truth claim, anyway.I would maintain that a person could be in touch with God without even believing in Him.

Don't you get enough of that in the daily world news? Yes, it is true that the Bible is chock full of it...but....what would be the point of discussing that philosophy? I am not advocating the Bible to be 100% inerrant, remember. I am simply bringing up quotes that I would be so inclined to follow philosophically.

The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy is a muddled attempt by the Inerrant fundamentalists to explain why they prefer fundamentalism over critical thinking and why they ascribe to theology over philosophy.My intent within this topic was to examine scripture from a theological perspective more than from a philosophical perspective. Im sorry if I made this unclear at first.The scripture that is usually used to reaffirm this doctrine is Of course, the idea of scripture interpreting scripture is labeled as circular reasoning by logicians. I suppose it all depends on whether critical thinking trumps fundamentalist inerrancy or not in the mind of the layman.

---

Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Our is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
--General Omar Bradley

Hence this topic. We can never know...we can but believe...or not.The Bible would say: Of course, some would say that this is merely more circular reasoning! Apparently, suppression of the truth is the reason for the wickedness.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Without looking up the definitions again, I can tell you what the terms mean to me.Theology is the study of religious beliefs. Philosophy is the study of wisdom.
Anastasia quotes Wiki regarding the Dei Verbum document:

quote:

---

This document states the Catholic belief that all scripture is sacred and reliable because the biblical authors were inspired by God.

---

IMB, theology assumes God a-priori. Philosophy assumes nothing, except perhaps that humans own their beliefs based on logic. Theology allows no such freedom.The roots of this argument between the two extremes of human wisdom a-priori or Gods wisdom a-priori come to a head in Euthyphro's Dilemma which is explained by Christian apologist Greg Koukl. Read the article in the link for an explanation of his reasoning.Here is an excerpt of a lesson in a theology class that is philosophical as well:Philosophical Theology: Christology
Dr. Garry DeWeese
Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2001
1. The incoherence
1.1 The central Christian affirmation is that Jesus is God.
1.1.1 This is an identity statement, not a predication. Somehow Jesus is
numerically identical to God.
1.1.2 How do we understand this identity statement?
1.2 The second issue is the cosmological one.
1.2.1 If God is the creator, what would it mean for God Himself to become part
of that universe?
1.2.2 Isn’t it demeaning for the Creator to become part of the creation?
1.2.3 If there’s a good reason, a reason in consonance with the Creator and
creation, then it can be explained.
1.2.4 How is it an ontological possibility for the Creator to enter the creation? If
all of creation is ontologically dependent on the Creator to sustain it, then how
could God leave His supernatural perspective and enter what He is sustaining
and still keep it in existence? Can He do this as a creature?
1.2.5 The attributes of the Creator is such that they must be greater than His
creation. So if the Creator assumes the nature of what is made, doesn’t that
necessitate the Creator give up some of His attributes and no longer be the being
He was?
1.3 The epistemological issue
1.3.1 If “Jesus is fully man” is true, then on what basis can we know the doctrine
of incarnation is true? On what basis can we predicate deity of Him? It may be
true, but how do we know it’s true because what we encounter is a man.
1.3.2 There’s a major role for natural theology to play in this.
1.4 The Trinitarian question--If the Trinity is true, how do we understand that if the
second person of the Trinity becomes man?
2. The nature of identity statements
2.1 The “is” of predication (x is y): x is a particular or a class, and y is a property or
a metaphor (qualities, properties, attributes).
2.1.1 That necktie is stylish. “Necktie” is a particular. “Stylish” is a property.
2.1.2 Neckties are torture. “Torture” is a metaphor.
2.1.3 Analogical predication. That book is good. The book isn’t good in the way
that God is good.
2.1.4 Logic shorthand “Fx” - F is the property, x is the particular.
2.2 The “is” of identity: x is numerically identical to y. x is a particular or class, and
y is a particular or class.
2.2.1 That animal is a dog.
2.2.2 The statement should be made so that if x is a particular y is a particular, or
if x is a class then y is a class, too.
2.2.3 Jesus is God could mean that God is a class and Jesus instantiates all of the
qualities of God. But that’s not what orthodoxy holds. This would imply that
the qualities of God could be multiply instantiated. Jesus is the only instance of
God that we can point to.
2.2.4 It’s better to say that both Jesus and God are particulars.
2.2.5 The green necktie is Ed’s. They are numerically identical.
2.3 Identity statements have certain properties.
2.3.1 Reflexivity: a=a. Something is identical to itself.
2.3.2 Symmetry: (a=b) then (b=a)
2.3.3 Transitivity: [(a]
2.3.4 Liebniz’ Law of the indiscernability of identicals: Necessarily, for any
objects a and b, if a is identical to b, then for any property P, a exemplifies P iff b
exemplifies P. (a)(b)[(a]
2.3.4.1 This creates a problem for the Trinity. If Jesus bears the property of
dying for our sins, then the property of dying for our sins is necessarily true
of anything Jesus is identical to, i.e., God.
2.3.4.2 This also creates a problem for the hypo static union. If Jesus as man is
identical to Jesus as God, then the attributes of man would be shared by God
and visa versa. How can limited knowledge be compatible with
omniscience? How can limited location be compatible with omnipresence?
2.3.5 Not Liebniz’ Law of the identity of indiscernibles: Necessarily, for any
objects a and b if for any property P, a exemplifies P iff b exemplifies P, then a is identical to b.
2.3.5.1 This is hotly debated whether it’s true or not.
2.3.5.2 If it’s true, it’s true for pure property is anything that doesn’t depend
on another for its identity. Relations are impure properties because there is another involved.
3. Christology
3.1 Christological distinctions
3.1.1 Christology from above and Christology from below
3.1.1.1 From above is Alexandrian Christology
3.1.1.1.1 Alexandria was a center for Platonism and philosophical study, so it tends to be more philosophical.
3.1.1.1.2 Starts from Jesus’ divinity and works to His humanity. It takes
for granted Jesus’ divinity and tries to work out His humanity. How can God Himself (taken as a presupposition) take on full humanity?
3.1.1.1.3 John’s Gospel is Christology from above.
3.1.1.2 From below is Antiochene
3.1.1.2.1 Antioch was a center for theology in the Greek world early on.
3.1.1.2.2 The epistemology is from Jesus’ humanity to His deity. How
can a human being be God incarnate?
3.1.1.2.3 This is the Christology of the synoptics.
3.1.1.3 You have to choose one of these starting points. Either starting point
can yield a fully orthodox Christology. This class is Christology from above,
which tends to be the approach of philosophical theology.
3.1.2 High vs. Low Christology
3.1.2.1 High Christology puts the emphasis on the divinity of Christ, but
doesn’t necessarily result in the exclusion of His humanity.
3.1.2.2 The danger is the docetic heresy, He appears to be a man but is not.
3.1.2.2.1 Jesus didn’t experience real temptation. If He couldn’t sin then
He couldn’t be tempted.
3.1.2.2.2 It seems undignified for God to live as a man.
3.1.2.3 Low Christology puts the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity to the virtual
exclusion of Jesus’ divinity.
3.1.2.3.1 Because of anti-supernatural presuppositions, this has been the recent trend in theology.
3.1.2.3.2 The danger is the Ebionite heresy, the beginning of the
adoptionistic idea. There is no ontological distinction between Jesus and every other human being.

It is the belief of some that Jesus has eternally existed.Thats another topic, however.

knowl”edge- n 1 : understanding gained by actual experience 2 : range of information 3 : clear perception of truth 4 : something learned and kept in the mind
Two questions:
1)Is knowledge gained through experience or perception?
2) How do we judge whether or not a scripture or sentence from any book an understanding of truth or just an opinion of another?

​

The Bible addresses wisdom:

​

wis”dom n1 : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : knowledge; also : insight 2 : good sense : judgment 3 : a wise attitude or course of action

​

NIV writes:

​

Prov 1:7- The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

This presupposes the Lord, of course. An a-priori argument.

​

Nemesis writes:

​

I no longer know what it means to say whether the Bible is inerrant. I always understood the "inerrancy of the scriptures" to mean that it is free from textual error. I don't believe that it is free from error. However, if it means that the Bible is the true and inspired Word of God, then I am an inerrantist.

​

Clusty Info writes:

​

Biblical inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error in the original autographs. This view was ably expressed in 1978 in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational statement of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend biblical inerrancy against the trend toward neo-orthodox and theologically liberal conceptions of scripture. It proclaims: "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church." Article XII states: "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit."

​

On a more practical level, I am reading an excellent book on addictions and how the Bible addresses them. To me, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is too all or nothing.

​

The book, Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave, states that "what really guides the thinking of many people who struggle with drugs or alcohol is a syncretistic set of beliefs that combines AA, pop psychology,pieces of scripture, and miscellaneous features of American culture." The author emphasizes practical theology as the guideline--in that one needs to ask themselves how scripture addresses the problems facing us today. The philosophical perspective questions everything. No fundamental beliefs are allowed to form. Theology takes a stand. Belief is expressed and everything else is compared and contrasted with the belief.

Keyword: Decide. The wonderful thing about being human is that we have the ability, the obligation, and usually the desire to make our own decisions in life. Some Calvinists would assert that we are incapable of choosing Gods way without His help. That book that I'm reading says that "..Sometimes it is not so much that we are poorly taught or unaware of what Scripture says, but it is that we don't want to believe the truth we already have. Even though we know the truth, we don't always want it to guide our lives."The book goes on to use an a-priori truth that Jesus Is Lord. Even though many Christians embrace it, sing it, and taught it...throwing in an occasional amen for good measure, it was not practical theology when their desires conflicted with the Scripture.Another example would be a husband who says he loves his wife, but by his actions actually loves flirtatious work relationships or even pornographic habits.Jim may sing "Jesus shall reign", but his drinking indicates that he wants Jesus to reign only when his desires and God's commands do not conflict.

I dunno...its kinda like a talent scout knows talent. hey can just smell it. Im not sure if we are programmed to be in touch with Gods wisdom or not, though.Not everyone is a talent scout!

Yeah.I gotta go to work, but when I get home, I'll bring up some scriptures that would qualify as my preconceived teaching. (what I was taught) Then we can put our noggins together and see if it all makes sense or whether P.T. Barnum was right!

You had a good argument ten years ago.Lets discuss the Chicago Statement.

I think I already understand your position on it. I'm more interested in their position and how they arrived at it.Let me get my ducks in a row and then I'll make a post here in a day or so.

It appears to me that the desired focus of your discussion is earlier than the Reform Movement (Sproul topic) and not Eurocentric. Please clarify your position as to what your argument is. I was preparing to discuss The Chicago Innerancy statement here. What is it that you wanted to discuss?