Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: rei3@midway.uchicago.edu (ted reichardt) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: a prayer for the dying Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 04:59:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Chicago Lines: 69 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article trondst@mack.uit.no (Trond S. Trondsen) talks about certainty and inerrancy. I'd like to make some comments. Trond asks how one could separate the correct from the incorrect in the Bible if the Bible is not taken to be correct in everything; does one use personal feelings, human knowledge, experience? Now first I think that this is not a well posed question, and represents those who don't accept inerrancy as seeing good parts & bad parts, as if one could create a *real* red-letter version of the Bible-- these sentences are perfect, and these simply human & incorrect. That *might* represent the views of some people, but not all by any means, and certainly not mine. But the more general question, of discerning the voice of God in Scripture, doesn't change much in my eyes whether one is an inerrantist or not. How do *you* find out what God is saying in any passage? Your desires? Human knowledge? Experience? You did after all leave out the Holy Spirit in your list, I suppose I'm justified in leaving it out here... It doesn't do much for certainty to have imperfect knowledge of a perfect book, particularly when lots of other people who also hold it to be perfect have other ideas about what it means. To get through those disagreements you can either go to those treacherous human arguments of translation, text analysis, and interpretation (sprinkled liberally with your own experiences and desires), or set your brother at nought by simply saying "this is what the Spirit says to me, and if you differ, obviously the Spirit is not with you." The latter you've already done, at least implicitly, with Michael. To what extent are you willing to discuss what the Bible says, with the possibility that you might change your mind? To that extent, you *don't* have "absolute" certainty, the sort you seem to be seeking (or believe you've found). To the extent you *aren't* willing to discuss the Bible in those terms, because you already have certain knowledge of what it means (I'm tempted to say you "know even as you are known" :-)), then I guess this note is a waste. Inerrancy looks to me like the outgrowth of a desire for a clear, concrete, get my hands on it type of certainty, like that sought by the disciples on the sea of Galilee; it was not the perfection of that fishing boat that the disciples needed to put their trust in, but the Christ that was in it. But the disciples seemingly asked "how can we trust our lives to this boat-- it's such a tiny and blatantly *human* vessel?" Trying to deny any possibility of imperfections in the boat so we can have "certainty" that it won't sink doesn't seem like the answer to me. It appears to me closer to the mark to trust in the God of the Bible, who has chosen to speak to us through his all-too-human apostles and prophets, and their all-to-human words, examples, and lives, in all of which God bears witness to His son. God called *people*, regular run of the mill people, to walk through Israel and Judah, and later the Roman Empire, and to preach the Word of God, also to *live* the Word of God (as Hosea and his marriage to Gomer, Moses leading the Israelites in the desert, and Paul calling the church to follow him as he follows Christ), in their human way, as they were led by the Holy Spirit. *One* aspect of their ministries is preserved for us, what was written by and about them. It is as human as the rest of their ministries though, and however "fixed" it may seem to be (and therefore easier to deify than a real live person in your midst), it shares the human character of these men, and of the rest of their ministries. tedr --