Summations Only

Any sermons you could come up with to support your view would represent only a small part of the Church. My point was that I could show you hundreds from all over the Church that support what I've been saying here because it's the historical traditional position on inerrancy and inspiration.I've been using the term "orthodox" correctly to mean "correct" or "true" to refer to the traditional historical main body of theology and I'm sure you know that. If you don't, what term would you suggest I use to say that, "true Christianity?" You know where that will get me.ABE: definition from Google: /abedwise is wrong, it isn't minutiae that determines this group but major doctrine. We may differ on some minutiae but he doesn't say what differences he is thinking of. I differ with John MacArthur on some secondary points but regard him as a major spokesman for the traditional orthodox camp on main doctrinal issues.I don't know why you object to the term "partial inerrancy" for your view, it seems to fit well with how you describe it: some of the Bible wrong, the rest inerrant.Your view of the Protestant Reformation is revisionist and weird.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Got to say in general about the opposing views given here that you all show an amazing commitment to such a wishy-washy relativistic idea of how truth is determined that there could never be any truth at all. How you live in that kind of philosophical void I can't imagine.

What has changed is what is inerrant and what is not. When Galileo backed Heliocentrism he wasn't accused of going against the Pope. He was accused of falsifying scripture."First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615Either the Sun moves about the Earth, or scripture is not inerrant. Your choice.

Yes, it isn't "just opinion," but there's a very strange idea here about opinion, as if any opinion just by being opinion isn't to be taken seriously. When you are dealing with what the Bible says you are dealing with facts: the words say such and such. The "opinions" you arrive at are conclusions based on a logical consideration of the facts. It's a logical and rational process, it's how we understand anything that isn't measurable. Sure I agree God is involved in the process when we are talking about scripture, but the process itself is a normal process of thought and it leads to conclusions that can be reconsidered by going back through the evidence, the facts of what the words say, and either confirm or change your conclusion about them.I think this idea about opinion is a kind of relativism that cripples minds. I suppose it can be traced to Postmodernism.

I don't know why the Catholic Church was so stupid about all that, though they did tend to follow Aristotle far more than the Bible, but it's obvious now, and you'll find it mentioned on the sermon on inerrancy I posted, that scripture speaks from the human point of view about such things: the sun "rises and sets," even on the Weather Channel, although we know it's the earth that's turning.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, it isn't "just opinion," but there's a very strange idea here about opinion, as if any opinion just by being opinion isn't to be taken seriously

---

In general, the point is that opinions presented as evidence are - at best - arguing from authority - unless the question is a survey of opinions. Even then you would need to do a proper survey rather than cherry-picking agreement

quote:

---

When you are dealing with what the Bible says you are dealing with facts: the words say such and such. The "opinions" you arrive at are conclusions based on a logical consideration of the facts.

---

But that isn't really what you do, is it ?Inspiration is never equated with inerrancy in the Bible.Luke 1:1-4 presents the Gospel as the fruits of human research, without any hint of being dictated by an outside source. Clearly this marks a human as the author. Why should we assume that Luke :1-4 is misleading or wrong ?The Bible does contain contradictions and errors and failed prophecies on any reasonable reading. Why should we set aside reason and logic to deny these ?If you followed the method you described you wouldn't hold the views you do.

quote:

---

I think this idea about opinion is a kind of relativism that cripples minds. I suppose it can be traced to Postmodernism.

---

That's laughably wrong and silly. The motto of the Royal Society - one of the foundations of science as we understand it today expresses the same idea. Nullus in verba. "Take nobody's word for it". It's rational not to give any great weight to opinions.If anything it's post-modernism and its relativism that give more weight to opinions.

I was talking about the methods of those who exegete the scriptures and arrive at the conclusions about inspiration and inerrancy that the orthodox traditional conservative churches do, as exemplified in the couple of sermons I linked and I'm sure by hundreds more at Sermon Audio since they represent the orthodox conservative traditional churches. They use those methods and they arrive at those conclusions which agree with what I've been saying here all along. What you get out of the scriptures I dare suggest is something pretty idiosyncratic.The way "opinion" has been used here is nothing short of idiotic.

quote:

---

I was talking about the methods of those who exegete the scriptures and arrive at the conclusions about inspiration and inerrancy that the orthodox traditional conservative churches do, as exemplified in the couple of sermons I linked and I'm sure by hundreds more at Sermon Audio since they represent the orthodox conservative traditional churches.

---

Except that it is quite obvious that you left out a whole lot. Notably the role of interpretation - and the role of dogma in dictating interpretation.

quote:

---

What you get out of the scriptures I dare suggest is something pretty idiosyncratic.

---

And yet anyone who follows sensible methods would come to the same conclusions. This is simple stuff.

quote:

---

The way "opinion" has been used here is nothing short of idiotic.

---

And there you display your usual hatred of rationality.Really you seem to be a post-modernist bully. Out to socially construct your own truth and to make people believe it.

I am not interested in defending all the ins and outs of Bible interpretation, the point of the sermons was to show that my opinions DO represent the orthodox traditional point of view, period.

They may well do to support the claim that your view is AN orthodox view. But how do. They support your claim that is is THE orthodox view ? There is a difference, and it is far more difficult to rationally argue for the latter.

You believe there's a one, right and true Christianity and that your brand of Christianity is that Christianity. Using the term "orthodox" isn't going to cause people to forget this. Worse, "orthodox" has a number of meanings, and since the particular definition of orthodox you intend isn't clear from context you're just being confusing. Why not use terminology that doesn't force you to keep explaining what you really mean?--Percy

There is no one true orthodox form of Christianity. For individual doctrinal points there can indeed be an orthodox position. But each form of Christianity (ie, denomination, sect, individual congregation, and/or cult) contains a large bundle of those doctrinal points. While a particular collection of denominations/sects/congregations/cults may have some doctrinal points in common, they also differ from each other on the other doctrinal points.That means that there is no one true orthodox form of Christianity. There is a multitude of them. Their name is "Legion", because they are many.Indeed, it is this fact that there is no one single "TRUE" Christianity that led to an evangelical preacher, Dan Barker, starting his transformation into an atheist. He was raised in the faith and was personally called by God to the ministry. Working as a travelling preacher, he travelled widely and visited many different "TRUE Christian" fundamentalist congregations. As a fundamentalist, everything was black-and-white and the line between true and false theology was firmly drawn. Every congregation he visited had the same world view and had drawn that same line. Only each line was a little different, allowing things that his didn't or disallowing things that his did. With each congregation he visited, his own line started shifting and he started thinking, which is certain death for a fundamentalist's theology.There is no one "orthodox traditional point of view". Rather, their name is Legion, because they are many.

Yes there is only one orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is defined by the major doctrines, such as salvation by faith, the Trinity, and including inspiration and inerrancy. These are held by all churches I'm calling orthodox.The secondary issues do not divide the churches from one another as far as shared orthodoxy goes although they may lead to new denominations. It's human nature to have a ton of disagreements, we won't all be on the same page on all the minor points until it's all over; but the Church as a whole includes all those who share the major doctrines. So all the ways that churches are a "little different" from each other means nothing in the big picture.The differences that make a difference are those that contradict major doctrine, such as salvation by faith plus works for instance, anti-Trinitarian views, denial of Biblical inerrancy and inspiration and so on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Different orthodoxies have different major doctrines.

I would contend that people are just as "stupid" for following you as it relates to evolution, common ancestry, and the age of the Earth, and for the same reasons.