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.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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

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!!