“Are you really saying that historic documents alone are sufficient to maintain a Christian faith?”

I would say that the historical documents alone provide enough evidence to be persuaded of the historical Jesus and His word and works. This is the basis for the Christian faith.

That being said, the Scripture has been given to us by God, not simply to affirm the truths of the historical events, but to give us all that is necessary for people to live a life for God.

Therefore, if the history is true, then the Christian faith is true and demands our belief. The next step is to begin to understand the Scriptures as the authoritative word of God.

A couple of other questions occurred to me.

What are the practical out-workings of your belief for the Christian who rejects inerrancy? What are the side effects on the Church “the Christian faith is based upon the Advent of Christ, not the inerrancy of Scripture. It is historical first.?”

Are you really saying that historic documents alone are sufficient to maintain a Christian faith? If not, what other resources do you believe will be necessary for use? Is it necessary for this person to attend an orthodox (don

Walk into the light…be not afraid…we will not harm you.

I personally think you have nailed this post Michael. I too believe the bible is inerrant, but I can’t put it it into my circle of essentials.

Probably the greatest thing I’ve learned from TTP thus far is that it’s OK to admit I don’t understand it all. The more I surround myself with Him in various forms (study, fellowship with believers, christian music, etc…), the more at peace I am in humbling myself and giving him all the glory. To tie this back in, whom am I to say His words are inerrant?

I’m even starting to sound like a Calvinist at times… oh my

Ha!

What would they have said if Christ would have called the South American Orchid seed the smallest of all seeds – that would have caused some confusion!

Once again, we must understand that the Christian faith is based upon the Advent of Christ, not the inerrancy of Scripture. It is historical first. Our records of history do not have to be inerrant before they are trustworthy. Therefore, there is no excuse for leaving the faith if the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds.

This does not mean inerrancy is not important, or that our faith is completely unaffected if the Bible were not inerrant. It just means, once again, that the Christian faith does not stand or fall on the doctrine of inerrancy.

It seems to me, and maybe I’m not getting it here… but it seems the point of this post is being lost in an argument of whether Christianity stands of falls on inerrancy. I would largely agree that if there were proven errors that my faith would be shaken. But Greg’s inability to reconcile apparent contradictions does not prove errors.

So sure in my opinion, if that atographa contains errors of any kind – then we have major problems. But to me the point is that we are limited in our understanding and ability to reconcile all Scripture that may seem to contradict. For us to throw away our faith because of our human limitations is simply not worth it – because as we mature as Christians we see God in so much in addition to Scripture. To me, that is the point that Michael is making here.

If we build our theology around inerrancy, especially with Christians newly maturing in the faith – we risk “losing” them when the find the first supposed error (I put losing in quotations because I’m not making a theological statement here, i.e. I know most of us here would probably say “they were never of us”). We have to persevere, and not become so prideful that we think we must be able to solve all the apparent contradictions.

In one of the TTP videos Michael admitted not understanding what it means to be “baptized for the dead”. It’s OK if we don’t understand some things. It’s also OK if we’re too fallible to reconcile all Scripture.