T4G – Inerrancy: Did God Really Say…? Mark Dever, John Piper, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Dr Simon Gathercole (Cambridge, England), Peter Williams (Warden at Tyndale House)

An essential, highly interesting affirmation by the panel of the belief on biblical inerrancy from the Together for the Gospel Conference 2012, led by Mark Dever, Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. Besides the great panel discussion, there are also a few book recommendations (linked to Amazon, just click on title or photo) and lots of links to search peripheral issues as they relate to the inerrancy debate. This page will be added to the (permanent) apologetics page.

photo from T4G website – http://t4g.org/resources/photos/

  1. We affirm that the sole (final) authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible and totally sufficient and trustworthy. We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error or by effects of human sinfulness. 
  2. We affirm that the authority and the sufficiently of Scripture extends to the entire Bible and that therefore the Bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice. We deny that any portion of the Bible should be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or for example to set the words of Jesus against the words of Paul. 
  3. We affirm that truth ever remains a central issue for the Church and that the Church must resist the allure of pragmatism and post modern conceptions of truths as substitutes for obedience to the comprehensive truth claims of Scripture. We deny that truth is merely a product of social construction or that the truth of the Gospel can be expressed or grounded in anything less than total confidence in the veracity of the Bible, the historicity of the biblical events and the ability of language to convey understandable truth in sentence form. We further deny that the church can establish its ministry on a foundation of pragmatism, current marketing techniques or contemporary cultural fashions.

Is inerrancy something new? Short answer „NO!”

Minute 4 – Dever addresses the charge that „inerrancy” is a „new thing” or just a „reformation doctrine?”.

  • John Piper responds:.In 1971 Fuller Theological Seminary  took the Word out.  I read what was happening in Germany. It blew me away. I did not see it coming. So it may have been there, but the teachers that I loved and had influenced me most didn’t talk that way and didn’t give me indication that it would be going that way. I was never able to make any sense out of the distinctions between infallible and inerrant. 
  • Dr Simon Gathercole – teaches New Testament at Cambridge, in England. One of the clearest figures to express a doctrine of inerrancy was St. Augustine and it came up for him in conversation with the Manichaeans where he made it very clear that there were no contradictions in Scripture , that if you do find what looks like a mistake in Scripture, it is either a result of a problem with the translation, a problem in the text, a particular manuscript or scribal error or that you have misunderstood it. So Augustine is an example of someone who was very clear on inerrancy.
  • Ligon Duncan – there is a consistent witness across Christian history to the Bible’s sole, final authority and its inspiration and inerrancy.
  • Peter Williams – (undergraduate studies at Cambridge) „I believe it is fully authoritative, inerrant, inspired by God’ I think I’d want to add more words, I want to say: It’s basically clear, it’s sufficient, it’s historical. People can take a word like „inerrant” and leech it (by saying) – „I agree with the notion that Scripture is entirely true, but then they try and weaken it in other ways and I think that’s happening particularly because a lot of people, at least in this country are signing an inerrancy statement for their paycheck (which sometimes happens; they redefine inerrancy). There are many reasons to believe in inerrancy, but I think when you believe in verbal inspiration (i.e.) that God gave words and you believe in God’s trustworthiness, that He has a true character and you want to have a relationship with God, then it is inescapable logically to come to a view of Scriptural inerrancy. If you believe that God has given words, I don’t see how you can break that and say, „Well, He gives words and they are sometimes full of errors”, without actually questioning God’s trustworthiness Himself.

The 3 roots/trajectories on how inerrancy is denied

  • Al Mohler (11 min mark) Why wouldn’t anyone believe in this? (This question) leads to a principle of interpreting church history, which often surprises people when you first hear it, and that is that „heresy precedes orthodoxy„. That doesn’t mean that the false precedes the true. It does mean that the codification, or confession of the faith is often in the face of, is a response to heresy or that which is sub biblical or sub orthodox. So, in 325  AD you have a statement made by the Council of Nicaea, that wasn’t necessary until Arius denied that the father and the Son are of the same substance. And when it comes to inerrancy, the first thing is that this is God’s word, God is totally true, so all the attributes of Scripture seem to come, and yet Augustine has to respond to the Manichaeans and we have to respond to contemporary denials of the total truthfulness of Scripture. I think there are 3 roots, or 3 trajectories in which that comes:
  1. The first is ideological and this is basically the external critique of biblical inerrancy. It comes from new atheists, of course if you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe there could possibly be a word of God; if you don’t believe in supernatural revelation as a possibility, or even recently, if you don’t believe in words as units of meaning; that are capable of conveying truth, there are various rules of philosophy and literary interpretation that have lost all confidence in words. They have to use words to explain how little confidence they have in them any longer; it’s part of the whole conundrum, but nevertheless, it is an ideological assault and so a good bit of what you will read simply says: „Inerrancy is an impossibility” and it will move on. But, it is not the major issue of our concern, there are two other trajectories.
  2. Another trajectory is apologetic. This is where you have evangelicals who say: This is an embarrassment. To claim inerrancy is to over claim the text, it is an impediment to our intellectual credibility and so you have people who would pose to be within the evangelical movement who will say, as Kenton Sparks in a recent book said, „This is the intellectual doom,” to paraphrase him, because it makes us continually defend the truthfulness of every passage in a text and that is leading modern people to have huge intellectual obstacles to receiving the main message in the text, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So you have various forms of this kind of apologetic argument; it’s the same argument as people who come along and say you can’t talk about the Bible’s teaching on sexuality; that’s presenting too much of an obstacle for contemporary people to come to Christ. Ot, you can’t deny the theory of evolution, it’s metanarrative because that creates too much of an impediment for people to come to Christ. And so, you have websites today and people arguing that inerrancy is just an obstacle, it’s a theological construct that’s doing more damage than good.
  3. The third trajectory, or the third root you can look at this is moral, in which case you have people say that if we’re committed to total truthfulness of Scripture, then we’re committed to text which reveal God as acting in immoral ways; God’s people sanctioning immoral acts, and what you have is people who will say, „Look, we have the capacity as human beings to judge God, and thus we’re gonna go to the conquest of Canaan or we’re gonna go to the way God deals with any individual in either Testament of the canon and say that that’s immoral. If you’re gonna try and impose a human standard of morality, like the late atheist, Christopher Hitchens, if you read the Bible honestly you’re gonna find texts that are gonna cause you all kinds of  difficulty and by the way, one of the things Christopher Hitchens did very well for us was to say, „He can understand theists who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and he can understand atheists who don’t believe it’s possible, what he didn’t understand were people who tried to pose in the middle.
  • Dr Simon Gathercole – The central plank for me in the doctrine of inerrancy, and that is that it was Jesus’ view of Scripture and I think the 2 other points that were mentioned are really significant. The sort of dogmatic logic of what Scripture says, God says and therefore because of the character of God, Scripture is without error. Also, it’s the continuous testimony of the Church. I would recommend everyone read John Woodbridge’s book  Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal even though the debate is now different, but there’s a lot to learn there. But, if you just look at the way Jesus treats Scripture, what He says about Scripture, „Your word is truth”, „Scripture cannot be broken”, the way He refers to Adam, the way He refers to Elijah and Elisha, all the figures of the Old Testament, the way He responds to Satan: „It’s written, and every word is proceeding from the mouth of God.” That has to be the real cornerstone for our doctrine of inerrancy and it means that it’s an imperative of discipleship for us, that it’s a matter of following Jesus. (Also recommends Christ and the Bible” by John Wenham)
  • Peter Williams – If heresy precedes orthodoxy then I think that apologetics precedes heresy, as in most heresy begins as apologetics movement. And, I say that as someone who is involved in apologetics and likes it. Liberal theology is an attempt to rescue Christianity from deep embarrassment and that’s how a lot of these things begin and  those of us that are involved in apologetics need to be quite careful about that, because it can lead to error. The way people get seduced sometime into abandoning Scriptural authority is when they become persuaded that, that thing which adheres most to their dreams and their aspirations and start to believe „that more people will come to Christ if I just water this down somewhat”. Sometime people become persuaded in theological education that they are being more faithful to the text if they read it in a way that is contrary to another text. When people are being brought up in a Chirstian context, to value the authority of the Bible, it appeals and they become persuaded that the most honest reading of the text is to read it so it contradicts to another one.
  • Al Mohler –   Liberal theology is a succession of rescue attempts for the reputation of Christianity and to just give an example of what Peter is talking about: You have Rudolph Bultmann, who in one of his books says people who use electric lights don’t believe in a supernatural universe. So, in other words, if you’re gonna reach modern people we’re gonna have to bring christianity into intellectual credibility with the modern world. A lot of the things you see being claimed right now are as old as the heretics that the church fathers faced and certainly in terms of protestant liberalism and what the church has faced in over 100 years.
  • Ligon Duncan –  Another example in modern liberalism is Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher  was offended by the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ and the uniqueness of Christ. And he looked out at Germany and he said: German intellectuals are rejecting Christianity in droves, they’re impacted by the enlightenment and the message of Christianity must change if we are going to be able to capture this generation for christianity. It wasn’t as if he was sitting around inventing to destroy christianity, but in fact he did that with apologetic missionary motives in reaching his culture and so liberalism’s fundamental premise is that the message must change if christianity is going to survive and effectively engage the culture.
  • Peter Williams -It’s going right back to Marcion in the second century. Marcion is deeply embarrassed by the Old Testament, by the Jewishness of Jesus. He, as an apologist thinks that he can commend christianity far better by ditching those things. So, that’s why becoming an apologist, led straight to the heresy.
  • John Piper (minute 20 mark) Mark Dever asks why JP concluded that inerrancy was true: There are layers to that like- My momma told me it was true. That’s one layer. „..remember those from whom you’ve learned the faith” (2 Timothy 3:14), that’s an argument in the Bible. Second layer would be: God made me see it. That’s the deepest layer and I do believe I couldn’t believe the Bible is untrue, if I tried because I am just taken by Him, for it. I believe that’s the deepest reason. You can’t persuade anybody with that and so, up above those layers are the layers of experience, of encounter with the text and I think that at one level the Bible, as C.S.Lewis said: „You believe in it as you believe in the sun, not only because you see it, but you see everything else by it”. I asked my professor in Germany one time, „Why do you believe the Bible? And he said: Because it makes sense out of the world for me. Year after year, after year you live in the book and you deal with the world and it brings coherence to evil and good and sorrow and loss. And there’s one other level I would mention: Liar, lunatic, Lord argument in the Gospels works for me in Paul: Liar, lunatic or faithful apostle because I think I know Paul better than I know anybody in the Bible. Luke wrote most quantitatively, but he’s writing narrative. But with Paul, if you read these 13 letters hundreds of times, you know this man. Either he’s stupid, I mean insane, or liar, or a very wise, deep, credible, thoughtful person. So, when I put Paul against any liberal scholar in any German university  that I ever met, they don’t even come close. So, I have never, frankly, been tested very much by the devil or whoever to say, „This wise, liberal, offering his arguments…” I read Paul and I say, „I don’t think so”. This man is extraordinary, he’s smart, he’s rational. He’s been in the 3rd, 7th heaven and he is careful about what he is saying. So, that whole argument „Liar, lunatic, Lord – works for me with Jesus and it works powerfully for me for Paul and moreover once you’ve got Paul speaking, self authenticating, irresistible, world view shaping truth, then as you move out from Jesus and Paul, the others just start to shine with confirming evidences. Just a few ayers, there are others. Dever prompts John to give one more. JP: Why are you married after 43 years? How do you endure losses? really, where does your strength come from? You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Free from pornography and free from divorce, free from depressions that just undo you. How do you find your way into marriage over and over and out of depression and away form the internet? How does that happen? It happens by the power of this incredible book. Dever: For people who haven’t had time to accumulate all those layers, anything you would tell them to read? Piper: Back when the inerrancy council was red hot „Scripture and truth” edited by Grudem and
  • Mark Dever recommends J. I. Packer’s „Fundamentalism and the Word of God”.
  • Al Mohler – The problem is how few of our confessional statements are clear on this in the first place. So one of our evangelical liabilities is that too much has been assumed under an article of Scripture without specifying language, with inerrancy being one of those necessary  attributes of Scripture confirmed. You do find people today, some lamentably who are trying to claim that  you can still use the word, while basically eviscerating it, emptying it of meaning. So you have historical denials, in particular, you have someone who says that a text… and „The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy” makes it very clear, our affirmations and denials are actually patterned after the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, which was itself patterned after previous statements in which there were not only affirmations, but clear denials. So, when you look to that statement, you’ll see that there’s the version of what inerrancy means and that means „This is not true”. So, you have clear denials. One of the affirmations is: Scripture has different forms of literature, but the denial is that you can legitimately dehistoricize an historical text. So, in other words, everything in Scripture reveals, including every historical claim is true. You find some people saying: „Well, you can affirm the truthfulness of the text without the historicity of the text. You can’t do that. You have people who are now using genre criticism, various forms to say: This is a type of literature. My favorite of these lamentable arguments is the one that says: This is the kind of text to which the issue of inerrancy does not apply. In other words: I don’t like it. But, what they mean is: I am not making a truth claim. If I am not making a truth claim… that’s ridiculous, but you find these kinds of nuances going on. You also find very clear, points of friction. So, let’s give an example of points of friction: Do we have to believe in the historicity of the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis? What Pete said about apologetics, that puts us over, against a dominant, intellectual system that establishes what is called credibility in the secular academy. Those evangelicals who feel intellectually accountable to that, are trying to say, „There has to be some other way then,  of dealing with Genesis 1 through 11 and that’s where you have now the ultimate friction point, with coming, for instance, the historical Adam and an historical fall and now you’re finding people who are trying to say, „Okay, there is no historical claim in Genesis 1 through 3, but I still believe in an historical Adam because I am just going to pull him out of the air and pop him down and say, „I still believe in an historical Adam (but) I am not going to root it in the historical nature of the text, but I need him because Paul believed in him. And then, you have people who have websites today, someone like Peter Enns, who used to teach at an institution which required inerrancy, but no longer teaches there, who says, „Clearly, Paul did believe in inerrancy, but, Paul was wrong”. And so, now you not only have the denial of inerrancy of the historicity of Genesis 1 through 3, you have Paul now, in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 being said, „Well now, inerrancy for him means ‘he was speaking truthfully, as inspired by God, but limited to the world view that was accessible and available to him at the time’. That is not what Jesus believed about Scripture. That is not what the church must believe about Scripture. I never came close to not believing in the inerrancy of Scripture. I came close to believing that there could be other legitimate ways of describing the total authority and truthfulness of the text and especially in context of fierce denominational controversy, I thought there must be room for finding it somewhere else and some people even mentioned here were correctives. For example J.I. Packer’s Fundamentals of God, was the bomb that landed in the playground. That little experiment just doesn’t happen; you take that out, it simply won’t work. At about the time that you (Mark Dever) and I really became friends, we were looking at how you came from an evangelical background where those issues have been discussed for 20 years before they did explode in the Southern Baptist Convention. My denomination had to learn this lesson a little bit late and at great cost.
  • Mark Dever– leaving the denominational stuff aside, you (Mohler) as a Christian, you found an intuitive, like John is talking about, an intuitive faith in Scripture.
  • Al Mohler– Well, it was intuitive, but I also had intellectual guardrails. My earliest, explicit theological formation was when apologetics hit me as a crisis as a teenager and I was led directly into the influence of Francis Schaeffer. And the book that most influenced me as a  teenager in high school, holding on to the faith as against a very secular environment was his book based on  lectures at Wheaton „He is there and He is not silent”, and I would point to that as the 5 or 10 books that most shaped my thinking, because Schaeffer’s logic in his lectures is really clear: „If there is a God, who doesn’t exist, we’re doomed. If there’s a God who does exist, but doesn’t speak, we’re just as doomed. If there is a God who does exist and He does speak, then salvation is in the speech. And so that was one of the guard rails in my life and being raised in a Gospel church that preached the word of God and just assumed that when you say „It’s the word of God”, it means all this.
  • Ligon Duncan – I didn’t have faith challenges as a teenager that Al did, but I was reading a lot of that apologetic literature and this was being talked about by evangelicals and the Ligonier statement on Scripture had come out in 1973, the ICBI Chicago Statement came out in 1978. Those are my teenage years. This is a conversation in the conservative corner of evangelicalism, in which I was reared. I had a good pastor that was happy to have me ask him questions about this when I was troubled with something I could ask him, he was on the board at Westminster Theological Seminary. When I went to Edinburgh (Scotland for PhD) I already had a solid education in the doctrine of Scripture at Covenant Seminary. But when I went to Edinburgh , James Barr’s book „Fundamentalism”  had just come out and I read it. I have more writings in the margins of the text in this book. I was arguing with him relentlessly in this book.
  • Mark Dever – This was an attack on J.I. Packer’s book and other kinds of statements of faith and Scripture.
  • Ligon Duncan – At that point I thought this would be some kind of hot topic. I had read some Barr in seminary, mostly semantics of biblical language and other things like that, in which, hopefully he is going after some bad stuff, but, I decided that when that book came out that I needed to read everything that Barr had ever written because of the potential influence on scholars. I was doing patristics at Edinburgh and so this wasn’t something that was part of my reading for work, it was just something I needed to do on the side and so I did. It was the most soul killing 6 months that I have ever spent. It was very disturbing. And several things helped me: One is a professor who had already thought through all of these issues. I went to another professor, and as we sat down he said, „You need to know, I have walked through all of these issues long ago and I’m happy to walk with you through them now. That was an enormous intellectual and theological resource to me. But then, it was the reality of Christ and the Gospel and the lives of believers that didn’t even know that they were ministering to me because that person could not be the way he or she is if there wasn’t a Holy Spirit indwelling Christ in us. I was also reading Ned Stonehouse’s biography of J Gresham Machen, who went through the same thing when he went to Marburg to study and he came into contact with Hermann and the german liberals of those days, and his correspondence with his mother was very significant in keeping him with just losing his mind.
  • Al Mohler – One other thing that was very informative to me was listening to people preach and seeing the distinction in the midst of a huge controversy with some people saying, „I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and other people saying, „I believe almost the same thing, I just think the words aren’t necessary, etc., etc.” When one got up and said, „This is the word of God”, read the text and preached the text and the other read the text and said, „Let’s find what’s good in here”. And they didn’t necessarily put it that way, but you could tell that is what they were doing homiletically. Here is an accountability to every word of the text. The text speaks because when the text speaks, God speaks. And on the other hand, people saying, „You know, there’s good stuff here, let’s go find it”.
  • Peter Williams – I went through a time of significant doubt when I was around 21 , 22. Mark (Dever) was in town at the time, in Cambridge, a great help and the Lord brought me through those, having to work through a lot of that. I certainly looked at liberalism and secular approaches to the Bible, from the inside, within my heart and really, there is nothing there, there’s nothing that has the explanatory power, the comprehensive work that the Gospel, the work in your life and even, also, I think on a historical  level there are some amazing things about the Bible. If I can just mention one: Historical level: Go back 400 years to someone like James Ussher (or 350) calculating the dates of Kings of ancient Israel, or Kings of Assyria. That was before archaeology had begun, before the language of the Assyrians had even been deciphered (that’s been in the last 200 years) and he gets the dates of Tiglas Pileser within one year of what now people believe it to be, based on the Bible and he’s not got Hebrew manuscripts any earlier than 11th century AD. and he’s getting reliable information from 1800 years earlier. You can document that. It’s not widely appreciated, but he gets the year 728 and we think it’s 727. It’s pretty remarkable, that sort of level of agreement. It is one of the most amazing stories to me, of historical accurate information being transmitted.
  • John Piper – ends with prayer that faith would increase in this generation.


Related articles

14 comentarii (+add yours?)

  1. reyjacobs
    iun. 18, 2012 @ 19:57:10

    „We affirm that the sole (final) authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible and totally sufficient and trustworthy. We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error or by effects of human sinfulness. „

    Romans 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 are marked both by human sinfulness and ineptitude. Paul can’t interpret the Old Testament properly to save his life.

    • rodi
      iun. 18, 2012 @ 20:03:52

      „Yet, all Scripture is God breathed…and profitable for teaching and reproof” (1 Timothy 3:16) If not, then God is either NOT omnipotent and therefore could not ensure his word is infallible and profitable throughout the ages or through the guide of the Holy Spirit, he intentionally allowed mistakes to be written into his book to trip us up. That not only makes for a low view of Scripture, but also for a low view of God’s attributes.

      Christopher Hitchens was right on the mark when he said: „I can understand theists who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and I can understand atheists who don’t believe it’s possible, what I don’t understand is people who try to pose in the middle.”

  2. reyjacobs
    iun. 18, 2012 @ 20:04:36

    The same chapters are also more or less Manichean. Augustine never left Manicheanism fully which is why he was the first Catholic to believe in Romans 3,4,5,7, 9, the evil of original sin and predestination. Before him only Gnostics believed this garbage.

    • rodi
      iun. 18, 2012 @ 20:08:16

      sir, I don’t understand. Are you stating that the chapters of Romans 3,4,5,7,9 themselves are garbage?

      • reyjacobs
        iun. 18, 2012 @ 20:24:49

        In Romans 3 Paul strings together a long list of scriptures which in their Old Testament context are about atheists. For example the two Psalms that begin „The fool has said in his heart there is no God” and continues „There is none that doeth good” etc. Paul rips out of context „there is none that doeth good” from this context where its limited to athests, makes it about everyone, mixes it with a bunch of other similar passages and then asserts the point of these passages is to „shut everyone’s mouth” and prove that nobody can be righteous. Yet in the OT contexts of the very passages he has mangled, we find God praising other people as righteous. This is twisting of the OT.

        That sets us up for Romans 4 where he argues since its impossibly to be righteous (established by the twisting of the OT in ch 3) therefore we must be saved by faith alone! And now he twists the passage from Genesis „He believed the LORD and counted it to him as righteousness” (i.e. Abraham believed the LORD and therefore counted God as righteous) into „Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness” (as if the passage in Genesis were about God justifying Abraham by faith alone rather than Abraham counting God as righteous because he believed God would keep his promise).

        Chapter 5 puts forth the absurd notion that Adam’s sin damned the whole human race, an assertion nowehere found in the Old Testament nor the Gospels. No Old Testament prophet was dumb enough to assert such foolishness, and Jesus certainly doesn’t. Only Paul was stupid enough to do so.

        As for chapter 7, the moronic „experience” about „the good that I will to do I cannot perform” etc. is not a possible experience. It is only an excuse by a wicked man.

        As to chapter 9, he twists the story of Esau and Jacob which is about inheritance of land not salvation. God obviously loved both Esau and Jacob to some extent since they both got some land (more than I have!) so when it says „Esau I hated and laid his mountains waste” etc. it just means that Esau got a crappier land. Big deal. That doesn’t prove predestination to damnation like Paul is trying to make it! Also in the story of Pharaoh being hardened, Pharaoh was hardened by mercy. When God took away a plague, then Pharaoh was hardened for God relenting meant to him that God didn’t mean business and he hardened his own heart as the text says several times, and Exo 9 says „I could have killed you with my plagues already…” but he showed him mercy. Paul quotes „I will show mercy to whom I will and harden whom I will” but only the first „I will show mercy to whom I will” is in the OT, the second he made up, and it shows he didn’t understand Exodus. Further, „I will show mercy to whom I will” is not about salvation! This comes in the story where God gives Moses a vision of his backside and says this to justify giving Moses a vision nobody else gets to see.

        Now, the Potter analogy Paul uses comes from Wisdom 15:7 rather than from Jeremiah. In Jeremiah the prophet sees the clay marred in the Potter’s hand and change his intention about the clay, at which point God declares his will change his intention about a person or nation if they repent. „If I declared to build up a nation but they repent of right and become evil I will tear down. If I declared to tear down but they repent I will build up.” But in Wisdom (the Apocrypha) the analogy is this: The potter makes out of the same lump both vessels for clean and unclean use, then turns around and make an idol too! The point is that idolaters are stupid not that we don’t have free will. Paul is quoting from the Apocrypha!!!!! And it twists it as bad as he twists the canonical Old Testament.

        • rodi
          iun. 18, 2012 @ 20:36:18

          sorry, but in rereading your first comment where you state:

          „Paul can’t interpret the Old Testament properly to save his life.”

          leads me to stop this conversation right here. We are of different worlds (to say the least) and there is no purpose in continuing this conversation. I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God (just 2 of His attributes) who guided the writing of His Scripture and chose the men and all of the small details not only throughout the history of the world, but in the recording of it all in the Bible, and if you think you have a better understanding of God’s Salvation plan than the apostle Paul who was chosen by God and met and was called by Jesus on the road to Damascus, then with all due respect our conversation here is finished.

          • reyjacobs
            iun. 18, 2012 @ 21:41:43

            Your a priori assumption is that Paul is inspired, moreso than the OT, so if Paul misuses or twists the OT, in your estimation the OT is wrong! Paul when he twists the OT is (in your opinion) actually improving it. My a priori assumption is the OT muse be afforded the higher authority since it comes first and therefore any NT writer who twists (especially a Pauly come lately whose only claim to apostleship is a story about having seen a light) must not be inspired.

  3. gabi bogdan
    iun. 20, 2012 @ 01:10:27

    Rodi, at least Ray is honest, he looks at romans and comes to the conclusion that it is only „Scripture twisting” by Paul. Others will not call Paul writings into question, but they will twist the meaning of his letters, or they will say that Scriptures are God breathed but will not believe what Paul wrote if you cut them 🙂

    • rodi
      iun. 20, 2012 @ 01:32:46

      Interestingly after Luke who wrote most of the NT (Luke and Acts), Paul comes in second with his 17 letters (others dispute that it was only 13)

      So, I think Mr Jacobs dismissal of Paul is just as bad. I did not post his last comment b/c I told him we had no need for further debate because we were so far apart on this issue, but here’s a snippet just to give you an idea. He said:
      Your a priori assumption is that Paul is inspired, moreso than the OT, so if Paul misuses or twists the OT, in your estimation the OT is wrong! Paul when he twists the OT is (in your opinion) actually improving it. My a priori assumption is the OT muse be afforded the higher authority since it comes first and therefore any NT writer who twists (especially a Pauly come lately whose only claim to apostleship is a story about having seen a light) must not be inspired.

      So to me this is an example of someone giving different criteria to different parts of the Bible and in fact is trying to really undermine Jesus as Messiah, which is what the Jewish people do. On another thread for a religious online magazine someone commented that „out of the whole Bible” there is only one person that claims that homosexuality is a sin, that is Paul. So, there isn effort from many sides to discredit Paul in order to discredit Jesus. On other sites, the effort is done through evolution and the discrediting of Adam as the man whom sin entered the world through, but again the ultimate goal is to discredit Jesus. The game is the same (Satan’s with his „did God really say” line) the players are just changing their strategies and trying to knock down Scriptures bit by bit, yet they never even touch the Scriptures (meaning read them for themselves) as they attack them using attack lines from the internet or other liberals who coined them before them.

      I have seen Mr. Jacobs on other blogs where he comments and I am not the only one who cannot understand his rationale for debating something he totally disregards. What I mean is, what can be the usefulness of it?

      • rodi
        iun. 20, 2012 @ 01:35:49

        Also, thanks to Al Mohler I have a new argument courtesy of the late Christopher Hitchens who vey intelligently said:

        “I can understand theists who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and I can understand atheists who don’t believe it’s possible, what I don’t understand is people who try to pose in the middle.”

        Just love it! Because it is so true!

  4. mtsweat
    iun. 20, 2012 @ 12:58:50

    Very good article with some interesting comments. Liberal theology opens the door to a lot of confusion. I fear to think what it would mean to the faith if the NT authors simply wrote without inspiration. We’d be best to eat, drink and be merry…

    Not to mention, what do we do with the teachings of Jesus… He did quote an awful lot of OT, ascribing it to Himself. Thanks for the great read, friend. God bless.

    • rodi
      iun. 20, 2012 @ 20:17:57

      Thanks for your comment, the target is in the end Jesus and as Hitchens says – you either believe it all or you don’t. The people who try to slowly chip away at the Word of God are deluding themselves by thinking they are still Christian, yet they negate the most basic tenets of Christianity. I weep for those who will one day wind up hearing the words: „Depart from Me for I never knew you”.

  5. Trackback: John Piper panel – Complementarianism: Essential or Expendable? « agnus dei – english + romanian blog
  6. Trackback: On spontaneous baptisms « agnus dei – english + romanian blog
Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari

%d blogeri au apreciat: