Parchment and Pen » Where I stand on all things part 1

Where I stand on all things part 1

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I guess that I will take the test again. I thought that I took it before, but I guess it got lost in the crash. I will break it up into three parts.

Progressives: I know what you are going to say . . . typical fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists: I know what you are going to say . . . typical liberal.

Here is a review of the ranks:

Essential for Salvation (1): Those doctrinal issues which rank as a 1 will only be those that you believe are absolutely essential for the Christian to believe in order to be Christian. In other words, if one were to deny this doctrine or issue, they could not be saved.

Essential for Orthodoxy (2): Those doctrinal issues which you rank as 2 will consist of those that you believe are part of the historic Christian faith. Ranking them as a 2 means that you believe that a denial of this doctrine, while not disqualifying someone from salvation, does disqualify them from orthodoxy. Obviously, if you rank something an 1 it will also be a 2, so there is no need to rank it with both a 1 and 2.

Important, but not essential (3): These doctrinal issues are those which you believe are very important for the Christian faith, yet do not qualify as a 1 or 2.

Not important (4): These doctrinal issues are those about which you believe that a person may have a strong opinion but you do not believe have any bearing on a person’s salvation or orthodoxy and are not important in any way for the Christian faith.

Pure speculation (5): These doctrinal issues are those that you believe are pure speculation. In other words, not only do they not qualify for 1-4, but you do not believe that anyone can or should have any legitimate conviction at all.

Wrong (6): These are doctrinal issues that you don’t believe.

Here is a chart/graph again to help visualize!

Here are the doctrinal issues as well as where I stand:

1. Belief in the full deity of Christ – 1

One cannot believe that Christ was just a man. I am not saying the confession that he is the “son of God” is going to immediately bring Nicene terminology into your thoughts, but one must believe that Christ is God. Rom. 10:13- in the context, the “Lord” is both God and Christ. His name represents who he is. “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Yahweh=Christ- cf. Joel 2:32). I believe the most important theological question that exists is “Who do men say that I am?” We all have to ask ourselves Who do I say that Christ is? Anything less than the God-man who takes away the sins of the world is outside the Christian options.

2. Belief in sola fide (belief that salvation is by faith alone, without the addition of any works) – 2

I believe that faith alone saves a person, not an adherence to the belief in salvation by faith alone. Having said this, I believe that it is a primary part of the discharge of the Gospel to proclaim strongly and loudly that salvation is by faith alone. Those who deny such are in great danger in many ways. Paul exhorted the Galatians not to fall back into a worthless system of works. The means by which they were saved (faith) is also the means by which they are kept (faith). When man attempts to add anything to the faith, they have denied the Gospel by which they were saved. This is tragic.

3. Belief in the existence of God – 1

There is no such thing as an atheistic Christian. Period.

4. Belief in the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church -4

I believe in the rapture of the Church, but there are a lot of well studied Christians who know and love the Lord more than I who would strongly disagree. However, there needs to be much more grace on this issues as I have seen the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture belittled to such a degree that any consideration is tainted. Those who are tempted to do such should not consult people like Tim Lahaye, but those who are more able to defend the position like Darrel Bock and Dan Wallace. Let’s all give each other some courtesy here.

5. Belief that the witch of Endor saw the Spirit of Samuel, not a demonic representation (1 Sam. 28:15) – 5

6. Belief in inerrancy (that the Bible does not have any errors in doctrine, history, or science – 3

It really depends on why someone is denying inerrancy, but, generally speaking, I would say that this is important but not essential.

7. Belief that believers, upon death, go to directly into the presence of Christ, not into a state of spiritual unconsciousness until the resurrection (i.e. you deny soul-sleep) – 2

Because the historic Christian church has been unified on this issue, I must give it a 2. If you hold to the doctrine of soul sleep, this does not mean you are not saved, but it does mean that you are outside the bounds of Christianity with regards to your personal eschatology. Get in line!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

No Responses to “Where I stand on all things part 1”

Vladimir on 16 Oct 2008 at 8:31 am #

Michael,

I think that the issue of inerrancy is essential to salvation, simply because all of our knowledge is contained in the scriptures.

It is foolish to say that Jn 3:16 is inerrant and then make dubious other statements in scripture as if they were indifferent.

The problem lies with the expositor/the espousals that diviate from the truth propositions of scripture itself.

This haughty impudence is revealed in text-critical studies, KJVOnly cultists circles, liberal academic environs and among the less well educated and informed.

There was a time when, supposedly based on scripture both the center of the universe as well as the flatness of the earth were based. Obviously, the problem with these views did not arise from scripture itself, but rather from those who interpreted/understood the scriptures in such a way.

As a teacher stated once: “Those who hold to a low/limited view of inerrancy, infallibility, etc of scripture, betray an unhealthy faith.”

Vladimir
britphil on 16 Oct 2008 at 8:42 am #

Hi Michael

I am in almost in a state of total shock! It would appear that of the first 7 categories we are in full agreement on 4 of them! And we are not too far apart on the other 3…although I guess that going by Vladimir’s comments, I am in even deeper, hotter water than you have plunged into on the inerrancy issue which I actually rate a 4! (although on reflection I wish there had been a 3.5 category such as “important but not so much as many folk would insist or have us believe…but I suppose I can’t have everything!

I shall now go away to begin work on preparing a robust defence when I try to enter heaven and am refused access due to of my stance on the inerrancy of Scripture .

And here was me thinking that it depended on my faith in Jesus alone as my Lord and Saviour..silly me!

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the parable of the sheep and the goats I do not remember the Lord saying, and “when did you see people refusing to adhere to a literal view of the inerrancy of Scripture and not correct them”

I know I know…I’m in real trouble now…but I just couldn’t resist it.
Vladimir on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:14 am #

britphil,

It matters – not because I object – but because God is the ultimate responsible author of the scriptures upon which you base your knowledge, hope, faith and confidence.

Your faith is in a person. Correct. He has revealed Himself in both word and deed.

Vladimir
Cadis on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:51 am #

Your just begging to be left behind. A 4?
This is what I ranked the witch of Endor question. In hind site my answer to no. 5 should have been a 5. I’ll change my answer to no.5 from a 4 to a 5, if you change your answer on no 4. to a 3. Ok?
If it is ranked unimportant they will be more likely to laugh and if they are laughing at you then double at me.
britphil on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:52 am #

Hi Vladimir

Thanks for your response. You let me off really lightly there as I was bit tongue-in-cheek!

“It matters – not because I object – but because God is the ultimate responsible author of the scriptures upon which you base your knowledge, hope, faith and confidence.”

I guess my difficulty lies in the description of “God as the ultimate responsible author of Scripture”

I believe that God is the ultimate inspirer of Scripture and the ultimate author of salvation, but your description does conjure up an image of the actual human biblical writers as being no more than mechanistic puppets whose strings were being pulled and manipulated by God as they wrote. Surely something of their personality and style must come through in their writings and that is was a co-operative venture between the writers and God. I have some more sympathy to a view which holds that God somehow “breathed” through the pens of the writers but even then I think there are questions to be asked re the inerrancy issue.

Also I have seen the doctrinal basis of some more conservative evangelical churches where they state their belief that the “original manuscripts of Scripture” are completely inerrant. I stuggle with this a bit, namely as to what distinguishes the authors of original manuscripts from say the authors of translations from the original manuscripts.

My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the Holy Spirit must have completely filled the original authors of Scripture during their writings, but they immediatley became fallible and errant once more the moment they stopped writing. And surely they did not undertake their writings all in one sitting. It would have been difficult for say, Luke to have written the Acts of the Apostles at one fell swoop. Does that mean that he became inerrant whenever he picked up his pen and then returned to normal fallibility when he stopped for lunch, only to return to inerrancy/infallibility when he picked up his pen again?

Also the problem for me with the above doctrine is that unless you preach from, or sit under the ministry of someone who preaches directly from the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts you may as well give up and go home, because anything else is a later translation and is by definition errant!

I am also intrigued, not to mention wryly amused, as to which versions/translations of the Bible people think are as inerrant as the original manuscripts! What I have no doubt about whatsoever is that God speaks, teaches, moves, instructs, encourages, challenges and convicts (amongst many other things) through the pages of Scripture, doing so throught the multiplicity of translations that are available.
britphil on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:58 am #

Cadis

OK I’ll both concede and confess!

When I went back and read the original ratings I was convinced I had given it a 3 and was quite surprised and disturbed to see I had given it a 4.

I did say that I would prefer a 3.5, if only to stand my ground a bit in the discussion with those those who insist on a 1, but I’ll revise it to a 3 then..but I’m stopping right there!

I don’t want to see any subtle attempts to persuade me to nudge it up to a 2 or even a 2.5!!
Vladimir on 16 Oct 2008 at 10:26 am #

Greetings britphil,

The doctrine of the inerrancy and infalliblity of the Scriptures is stated explicitly and drawn and based totally on them (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:11-13; 2 Pet 1:21; Rev 21:10, etc) .

From your remarks you are correct that the human authors were more than a “pipe through which God blew” (Philo of Alexandria). Hence, we are able to see and study the differences in style, vocabulary, etc of these writings on a human level.

The inspiration issue of the original authors and their consequent inerrancy and infallibility in writing did not render them such in all areas of life. Even Luke had to investigate his findings before he sat down and wrote.

But, the aspect of PHEROMENOI (being born/carried) (2 Pet 1:21) by the Holy Spirit of the human authors should not be mimimized or ignored.

All translations, hand written manuscripts, printed editions, etc of these Scriptures do still in fact constitute the word of God. However, none are either infallible or inerrant – much less inspired – by virtue of the fact that printing, copying or interpolation/omission errors can be found in all.

Nonetheless, as the evidence shows, the average believer (in whatever language) can be confident and rest assured that what he or she reads is in fact the word of God.

Vladimir
britphil on 16 Oct 2008 at 10:53 am #

Hi Vladimir

Thanks for your gracious comments.

With regard to the Scriptures you quote, I am not as convinced as you are that they all are so clear in supporting the inerrancy argument.

eg “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

At the risk of starting another conversation altogether here I would state that an interpretation of this verse would largley depend on how a person views the concept of “prophecy”, as some wqould argue that it is still possible for some to be carried along by the Holy Spirit today resulting in the outpouring of prophecy. Therefore it could be argued that the concept of being carried along by the Holy Spirit is as relevant today as it was during the times of the biblical writers. ie people can be carried along, and the swiftly put down again by the Spirit of God, then picked up again etc. if you get my drift.

Also, what happens where there is some dispute as to who the biblical writer/authors actually were ie the letter to the Hebrews for example, where even the most conservative of scholars tend to refer to “the writer to the Hebrews”. I take it you also believe that the unknown authors were carried along as well as the known ones!

“in writing ..did not render them such in all areas of life” I would personally prefer to see that it did not render them inerrant in most areas of life. The Apostle Paul describes himself as often “inwardly burning” and the “chief of sinners” which leads me to take the view that it is safer to view that they were inerrant in large areas of their life and that inerrancy was the exception rather than the rule.

I think this belief has crept into our churches by the back door ie we have a tendency to assume that the preacher/pastor/leader/elder is inerrant and cannot be questioned, and not the Word which they are attempting to interpret for us..Just out of interest, are you of the belief that the preacher is similarly carried along by the Holy Spirit when they preach? I have real problems with this view as it virtually permits carte blanche in the pulpit.

“But, the aspect of PHEROMENOI (being born/carried) (2 Pet 1:21) by the Holy Spirit of the human authors should not be mimimized or ignored.”

I agree with you that it should not be minimised or ignored, but it would appear to me that there is a similar danger when the aspect is maximised or over-emphasised. Both extremes are dangerous in my vie.
Vladimir on 16 Oct 2008 at 11:13 am #

britphil,

The inspiration that the Scriptures are addressing is past.
If God is trustworthy, truthful, etc., then the credibility of His character is revealed in both what He says and what He does. Hence, infallible and inerrant.

Be careful not to mix issues. Anonymity (the four gospels, Johannine epistles, Hebrews) is not pseudonymity, which, of course, is not [biblical] inspiration.

Whatever a pastor, priest, bishop, pope, layman may surmise is different from what the Scriptures explicitly state as fact.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers is another issue separate and distinct from the doctrine of inspiration.

In addition, the recognition of these inspired writings is a separate issue from the statement of their being constituted as such by God.

Vladimir
Jill on 16 Oct 2008 at 3:20 pm #

I agree. We should have the utmost of patience and wisdom, and be full of grace and kindness towards others when we trip on over to Google and type in “Famous Rapture Watchers” (how the greatest Greek whizzos interpreted Rev. 3:10), “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” (see LaHaye’s hypocrisy under “1992″), “X-Raying Margaret” (finally an unbiased analysis of her), “Thomas Ice (Bloopers)” (the genius with a phony Ph.D that everyone perilously leans on), “Hal Lindsey’s Many Divorces” (who said tugboat captains lead boring lives?), “Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal” (“I’m not plagiarizing – just borrowing!”), “The Rapture Index (Mad Theology)” (who says you can’t fool all the people all the time?), “Thieves’ Marketing” (more “borrowing” for big bucks!), “Pretrib Rapture Desperados” (if Plan A doesn’t work, try B or C), and “Deceiving and Being Deceived” by D.M. (but take some tranquilizers first!). Jill
Cadis on 16 Oct 2008 at 4:53 pm #

Britphil,

You’ll need to search a little deeper in your confession. You put the Rapture at a 5 ! I’m not even going to try and reason with you

My first comment was to Michael on the Rapture it was not on inerrancy. I gave that a 3 too
ScottL on 17 Oct 2008 at 5:30 am #

CMP -

Is it interesting that so many times we try and hi-jack your blog to get our theological viewpoints out?

Let’s interact, but this was simply CMP sharing his viewpoints, respected ones they are, about what was essential, important, and unimportant to the faith. Why try and use this to prove our understanding of inerrancy? I think CMP wrote other articles on that topic.
britphil on 17 Oct 2008 at 6:27 am #

Cadis

Maybe a little explanation of my Rapture Aversion needs to be outlined in more detail.

The main reason for my classing it as “unimportant” probably stems from my reaction to some of the complete crazies who go on about it as if it is the only eschatolgocial aspect of the Kingdom of God that there is to discuss and debate. Please let me say Cadis that I do not, by any means class you as a “crazy” but there are plenty of them around who make Christianity appear wholly unattractive and unreasonable and would make me want to run a million miles from ever becoming one!

It is also maybe a reaction to some of the dreadful and horrific films /movies(mainly I have to say, emanating from Stateside) which are designed to terrify people into heaven. I am a firm believer that conversions based purely on fear alone are not authentic and do not last. I would also say that some of the interpretations in some of these films/books/tracts/sermons are pure fantasy/speculation and could easily be rated as a 5 on the CMP scale.

But I truly do believe that as an issue it is relativey unimportant, with a great deal of the speculation/teaching on it on the cusp of being nothing more than pure speculation/figment of imagination neatly masquerading as truth, or, in the worst cases plain error.

That’s about as deep into my confession as I am prepared to dig!
Nick Norelli on 18 Oct 2008 at 1:06 am #

Deity of Christ – 1
Sola Fide – 3
Theism – 1
Pre-Trib Rapture – 4
Witch/Samuel – 4
Inerrancy – 4
Soul Sleep – 3
Peter on 19 Oct 2008 at 10:25 pm #

Michael, what you consider the minimal and bare essentials is not in line with historic Christianity.

By what thinking can you claim allegiance with historic Christianity, with no cut off date, but not their idea of what is the minimum?

Is the substance of what is minimum itself not part of the minimum? But then the minimum is up for grabs, so it is no longer a minimum.