Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 5:19 PM
33 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, JonF, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (10 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,035 Year: 15,071/19,786 Month: 1,794/3,058 Week: 168/404 Day: 55/113 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 94 of 111 (824599)
12-01-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Thugpreacha
12-01-2017 3:11 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
Oh, it’s more than that. They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture. It’s a fundamental contradiction in their claims and one which points to intellectual dishonesty, at the least.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-01-2017 3:11 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 7:58 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 97 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-01-2017 8:08 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-01-2017 8:09 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 98 of 111 (824611)
12-01-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by kbertsche
12-01-2017 7:58 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
quote:

How so? It seems the opposite to me.

It’s right there in the first sentence. Interpretation is subject to their assumed inerrancy. Which means twisting the text to cover up contradictions and errors which can’t be explained away.

quote:

whereas non-inerrantists set themselves up as an authority over Scripture, deciding which parts are true and which are not.

That is hardly fair. If there is a contradiction it is honest to the text to point out the contradiction - without any need to decide which is true.

And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isn’t something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 7:58 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-01-2017 8:13 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 105 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 3:20 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 101 of 111 (824614)
12-01-2017 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Thugpreacha
12-01-2017 8:13 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
quote:

I see your point but do you see theirs? If there is no consensus on what is and is not authoritive, one may as well throw the book away and start from scratch...which is kinda what we do here.

Authority doesn’t require inerrancy. You don’t have to insist that the creation stories are literally true for the Bible to be authoritative on what matters. Nor do you have to paper over the cracks in the nativity stories or the accounts of Judas’ death. But they wouldn’t allow you to accept the contradictions with reality nor between different stories.

And what worth is authority based on a lie ? Because that is what they are selling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-01-2017 8:13 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-01-2017 8:32 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 103 of 111 (824618)
12-01-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Thugpreacha
12-01-2017 8:32 AM


Re: The Impact Of The Chicago Statements
quote:

One thing that has been revealed is that this group from Chicago that affirmed these positions is the heart and soul of Biblical Christianity.

I think you should use scare quotes because it isn’t as Biblical or as Christian as they would have you believe.

quote:

Would you say that all of them are Calvinists or can be defined as such?

It’s certainly possible, but it isn’t a matter I’ve investigated or found especially important.

quote:

What are some scholarly groups who steer around Calvinism without digressing into Universalism or feel good positive affirmations, such as Joel Osteen teaches?

Again, it’s not a matter I’ve considered important to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-01-2017 8:32 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 106 of 111 (824648)
12-01-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by kbertsche
12-01-2017 3:20 PM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
quote:

Sometimes it IS something that they make up.

Maybe some non-inerrantists get it wrong, sometimes. But I will bet you can come up with very few - if any - cases where a non-inerrantist arbitrarily invented a fact to contradict the Bible. On the other hand I’ve seen more than one implausible story invented to reconcile the different accounts of Judas death.

quote:

Scripture must be interpreted. It says nothing on its own, apart from interpretation. Often biblical critics interpret Scripture very naively and anachronistically

I am aware of some cases, but it is rare for them to be much worse than some inerrantists I’ve run into on this forum. I’m also aware that more than once you’ve baselessly accused people of making anachronistic readings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 3:20 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 4:18 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 108 of 111 (824654)
12-01-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by kbertsche
12-01-2017 4:18 PM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
quote:

I may not have been able to convince you that such allegations were true. And they may in fact have been false.

As I remember it you did not offer anything that should convince anyone. Even you.

quote:

But this does not mean that they were BASELESS; I had good reasons for them

Claiming that you have good reasons now - when you never provided any before is hardly convincing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2017 4:18 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019