Summations Only

I'm sure everyone here knows that you are not alone in believing in literal Bible inerrancy and that you are not alone in claiming that God wrote the Bible.So is a sermon from anyone else who says this stuff going to convince us either that you are right or that your belief is 'THE' Christian belief? Hardly.I'm not adverse to listening to a sermon or two, but surely this kind of recommendation does not amount to much of an incentive.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've been told I'm not representing the orthodox Christian point of view. These sermons are intended to show that's wrong.I've been told I'm wrong to claim that inspiration and inerrancy go together, meaning of course according to the orthodox point of view. These sermons answer that too.I've been told that inspiration is not what I've said it is, period. Well, here are a bunch of preachers who say it is what I've said it is. This is the orthodox, traditional point of view.That there are other points of view doesn't change the fact that I am representing one huge body of traditional orthodox thought and these sermons are intended as evidence for that claim.

I understand. But how can any single person or group's sermons do that? They cannot. All sermons are just someone's opinion.Again, this forum exists because we know that people interpret the Bible in this way.By the way, some sect has already co-opted the term Orthodox. I think in order to correctly call your beliefs orthodox, you are going to have to add in so many qualifiers as to make the term meaningless. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think those inspired by Zeus are at least as inerrant as those inspired by God.--Percy

Actually I would say it falls somewhere in between partial inerrancy and total inerrancy. The point is that God inspired ALL of it but that he did not necessarily give them the exact words to say. They wrote from their own personal perspective and in the context of their understanding and the society they lived in. That is why they wrote things that are just plain wrong - like "fountains of the deep," "windows of heaven," " pillars of the earth," etc.But in matters of faith necessary to salvation, they were inerrant. Is it necessary to salvation to know that 600,000 men, plus women and children left Egypt? If that detail was in error and there was really only 20,000 people who left Egypt, would that affect your salvation? You say Yes, it would. The Nazarene doctrine says No, it would not. You are not. Orthodox Christianity refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church or Oriental Orthodoxy. These churches claim an unbroken line that traces back to the apostles and the church at Ephesus in particular. What you adhere to is Calvinism (at least that is what I can best determine your doctrinal stance to be associated with). I do not consider Calvin to be orthodox, he was an extremist. In fact, very few churches actually hold to a strict Calvinistic view, instead they have a watered down version of his theology.I brought this up before, the Reformation was a reactionary movement; its proponents were reacting to the abuses of the Catholic Church and in doing so, over compensated. They took an extreme swing in the opposite direction. I was raised in a Baptist Church, in the Calvinist tradition (although like I said, a watered down version). I now find some Calvinistic doctrines to be reprehensible and even dangerous to people's understanding of God. Wesley came a couple hundred years after Calvin and this allowed the pendulum to swing back, more towards the middle. I find that middle ground much more palpable; it makes much more sense. We could all produce sermons that support our particular point of view. So what? What you need to come to grips with Faith, is that doctrine is a human construct, intended to explain some aspect of God's character. And because of this, NONE of them are infallible. NO doctrine has everything right. I would assert that every single doctrinal or theological system has a significant flaw of one type or another. Every single one. Do you assert that Calvin was infallible, or Wesley, or any of the theologians throughout history, or the preachers you cite? Are any of them infallible? NO.Theology is simply our best attempt at understanding God. We choose a theology by what we believe to be the best representation of reality. There is no ONE perfect doctrine or theological system. I reject Calvinism and its watered down versions because I don't believe it matches reality. I don't care if you think it is "orthodox" or "traditional," or that it represents "one huge body," it is wrong in my estimation. Yes, I am probably wrong in some of my beliefs... but so are you. That is what you need to come to grips with. It doesn't matter how many preachers agree with you (because certainly just as many disagree).HBD

A lot depends on what it means to be inspired. It is my observation that humans can be inspired (or motivated) by stirring classical music, or a jaw-dropping gorgeous sunset(or Blond, for that matter ). ) It is also my belief that there is a spiritual realm. There are two flows. (Originally set in motion, perhaps, by the awakening that was symbolically if not literally portrayed in the Garden Of Eden--Humans were actually allowed by God to choose whether or not they obeyed Him or not. When our eyes were opened, we became quite able to personify evil intent and action.Critics will, of course argue about whether good and evil are arbitrary human constructs or whether both of these forces existed before we humans were able to understand or comprehend a spiritual realm. I believe that the latter is most likely---at least among the two choices I just discussed.In my belief, spiritual inspiration originates from the very essence and character of either The Holy Spirit or the imitators...suggesting that those who worship a stone idol or a literary character such as Zeus either are inspired by themselves or perhaps by satan. This of course presupposes that satan has counterfeit power. (This also presupposes that God too has the power to inspire.) True, but God supposedly gave Noah the correct dimensions of the size of the boat--perhaps even giving Noah wisdom beyond his natural boat building common sense. There is no proof to this, granted. Look at Moses and the Magicians. Each was inspired to manifest magic before Pharaoh. Both sources of inspiration were clearly manifest. One prevailed. This assumes that our opinions are inspired by ourselves alone. No Man is an Island...Personally I believe that God exists and has the power to inspire myself and/or you also....though perhaps the source of inspiration cannot be objectively proven.

Our opponents may claim that just because we preach and/or proclaim God the Holy Spirit as a valid source of inspiration we cannot prove this to be the case beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have listened to many sermons and my observation is that some of them were more than just an individual opinion as No Nukes suggests. The content of the wisdom suggests that it originates from a strong and common source. Naturally I believe God to be that source but attempting to get others to see this is a process that involves patience, prayer, and awareness of how I present myself to them when attempting to convince them. If I say something even the slightest bit stupid or unprovable I will get called out on it.I am sure you are aware of this also. Keep praying and asking God for wisdom and the strength to present your arguments in a fashion such as He would desire to manifest through you.

I can't argue with you there. In a multiple choice test, the possible answers to the question of whether scripture and/or human sermons are infallible would be

quote:

---

a) Yes.God exists and speaks through humanity.
b) Yes, but being inspired does not mean speaking as an infallible Prophet.
c) No. Evidence is the standard and there is no evidence for inspiration apart from human inspiration
d) We Don't Know.

---

Personally I go with B. It is my belief.Edited by Phat, : spellingEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

You missed one.e) No. God does not exist therefore can not inspire anything.

This is fine as a statement of belief, but not as a statement of what is true. There is as little evidence for what you believe as there is for what anyone else believes. I agree with those characterizing Faith's religious beliefs as disagreeable (to put it as mildly as I can), but that's neither evidence for or against them, and the same is true of religious beliefs that strike people as inspiring and exalting.Concerning the topic, there seems widespread agreement (and good evidence) that the Bible was written by men, and also widespread agreement (but no evidence) that these writers of the Bible were inspired by God, but no agreement that "inspired" means that what they wrote was the literally inerrant Word of God.--PercyPS - Got a spelling error when I tried to use the word "exaltant" and learned that "exalt" and "exult" are two different words. Who knew!

e and c are basically the same thing.

What I've been sayin'.We've all heard the old argument, often used by critics of religion, based on the observation that all religions and denominations and sects and cults (AKA "religions/etc") disagree with each other on one point or another or several more, that "only one of them can be right." Rather, none of them are right, because they all get something, even many things, wrong. But at the same time, all of them are right, because they all get a number of things right -- OK, it is logically possible for a few to be completely wrong, but those would be exceptions.What religions/etc get wrong are mostly in the minute details of their theologies. What they get right are mostly in the general ideas, attitudes, social mores, etc.Those religions/etc that insist on holding an orthodox position (not to be confused with Orthodoxy, though Faith's constant use of the term does raise that confusion) are the ones that insist on the truth of their theological minutiae. That means that they are insisting on the parts of their religion/etc that are wrong. That also means that they are not open to examining or testing those ideas. They are not allowed to think critically of those beliefs.The religions/etc that are mainstream do not insist on an orthodox position, but rather keep to the general ideas, etc. That means that they hold to the parts that are much more likely to be true. They are also much more open to thinking about their beliefs and examining them.Faith thinks that just by holding an orthodox position she is part of a much larger group. In truth, there are so many different groups that hold orthodox positions that do not agree with each other; they may agree on a few common theological minutiae, but they also disagree on many others. At most, only one of the plethora of orthodox groups could be right, making all the others wrong (by their own logic, which agrees with the extreme conditions of Matthew 7:20, if even just one of those beliefs is wrong, then the entire thing is wrong). But we already know that there isn't even one that is completely right.Those orthodox groups are extremist. Mainstream Christians look at them as being out on the fringe and holding beliefs that are just plain weird (across from our junior high school was a church that we heard believed weird stuff; a minister from that church, Chuck Smith, formed Calvary Chapel which formed the local nucleus for the Jesus Freak Movement of 1970).Why Faith ever wanted to claim to be mainstream, I just cannot understand.

Who uses inspiration in this sense? If the story of this contest is true, God did not simply inspire Moses. He talked to him directly, told him what to do, and gave him empowered artifacts to work with.If instead there was no burning bush but an inspired Moses who confronted Pharoah, and that none of the frog, river of blood etc actually occurred, why insist on the snake contest?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's assume this is true. What should I make of a sermon you offer me that purports to be about the nature of inspiration? How will I know that the sermon is correct. What should I make of a sermon that takes a different position?

In this case it would be me that was attempting to inspire you by pointing you towards this sermon. The sermon may very well be inspirational to me, yet not so much for you. If, on the other hand, you found it yourself and were inspired by what you heard, the inspiration came from the content of the sermon itself. What does this word correct mean in this context? You now have me thinking.(you inspired me through these questions! ) I believe that we choose what inspires us. You would be inspired through listening to what resonated with your soul.This brings up jars old Source versus Content argument. We need to ask ourselves if we are inspired more by the source (who said it) or by the content (what was being said.)Edited by Phat, : changed a word