Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You really didn't understand what I was saying. I state that so many of the variants of understanding are really not that important and you conclude that to imply that the epistles of Paul don't matter?
What kind of stupidity is that?
There have been so many posts since #1 in which I clearly stated contrary to that and you say that now. What a joke!!
Do you just like creating controversies that do not exist? Putting words into others' mouths so that you can deride them?
You miss the difference between "inerrancy" as often espoused and "God breathed" as the scripture declares of itself.
Lee didn't even believe in "God breathed" concerning James. Oh, he said that God put it there as an example of error. But that is a dodge. He really wanted to exclude it from the canon of scripture. But he knew he couldn't get away with that, so he came up with that excuse. Same with the Psalms (or many of them).
Backing away from the extreme claims that "inerrancy" puts on scripture does not diminish them in the least.
And backing down from the extremes of inerrancy does not increase errors or keep us from realizing our ridiculous misinterpretations. It would seem that the most common places where inerrancy is proclaimed the loudest is in conjunction with errant declarations as to what that inerrant scripture means. In effect, it is too often used as a descriptor of the interpretation of scripture rather than of the scripture itself.
I agree that the scripture itself is without error. But saying that does not make my favorite interpretation correct. Neither does it help to prove that it is either correct or incorrect. It only declares that the words from which I/they got the interpretation are, themselves, without error.
|
You cannot expose a ridiculous misinterpretation without engaging in the reasoning. If someone derives a ridiculous interpretation based on a greek translation then you must address that, if they derive a ridiculous interpretation based on "context" or semantics, or reference to Plato, or Cargo cults, or the Bronze age then you must address that.
So then if you think that a doctrine, such as "The ground of the church" is in error then you must walk through the way in which this teaching was derived from scripture and expose the error, regardless of how much you dislike it. You cannot mud wrestle without getting dirty.
Now if you don't think that teachings like "MOTA" or "Ground of the Church" warrant you getting dirt on your hands so be it. But dismissing the battle because you think they have blown some minor detail out of proportion and we shouldn't parse the word of the Bible like that will have no effect on helping those deceived. Like Paul said "I have become all things to all people".
When I was in the LRC I fellowshipped with Christians all the time and I wanted them to either point out the errors in "the ground of the church" doctrine or else respond to it.
Your post reminds me of the Lord complaining that the Pharisees would strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. He didn't condemn them for straining out the gnat, He said they should do that, only He condemned them for swallowing the camel.