Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ncsatl!smith_c@gatech.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 90 08:46:19 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: National Computer Systems, Atlanta, GA Lines: 84 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , paulj@b8.ingr.com (Joey Paul x4129 ) writes: > kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie @ U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742) writes: > > [various text deleted] > > So, a question is posed to all the net-theologians - which parts of scripture > do you accept as the Word of God (because they are "correct") and which parts > do you reject (because they are "incorrect")? What criteria do you use to > determine inspired words of God vs. questionable words of men? Since there > are so many different versions ( or should we say PERversions) which one do > you feel is the "real" Bible, or do they all fit this description, or maybe > we don't even have the real one, just a book called the Bible that contains > parts of the Word of God? Sheesh, and thought I had finally found something > I could rely on...but who'd walk across a bridge with so many cracks and > holes in it? The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. As a history book, I'd be reluctant to cross its bridge as it has a great many cracks and holes. If you regard the Bible as basically a history book with many theological comments interwoven into the text, then it should be condemned as unsafe to cross. However, if you regard the Bible as a textbook of faith with history interwoven into the Message, then the Bible is as sturdy a bridge as you'd ever care to cross. The Bible is a theology textbook with history interwoven into the text. I'm perfectly content regarding the Bible as theologically inerrant. Now, as for which parts of the Bible I reject as incorrect and which I accept as correct: Evil men speak incorrect things often interwoven with correct things. Good men speak incorrect things often interwoven with correct things. Vice versa. What criteria, then, do I use to determine inspired words of God versus questionable words of men? Whenever the Prophets say, "Thus says the Lord...." is the first criteria for determining the inspired word of God versus questionable words of men. Repentence is also a good clue; they might not get it right at first but by the end of the story they know what's right and what's wrong. > -- > . | Joey Paul (205) 730-4129 . > . "Ye must be born again." | uunet!ingr!dj4104!paulj (UUCP) . OFM comments: > [This one comes near the border of personal attack... I'm concerned > that you're so busy with the sarcasm that you might not have had a > chance to think about what was being said. The situation Darren > describes is a flaw only if you assume that Scripture is intended to > contain information and instructions that are unambiguous, and is > intended to be used without any further analysis. Many Christians > believe that God -- for reasons known only to himself -- preferred not > to give us all the answers, but insists that we put a certain amount > of work into the process ourselves. I understand the disadvantage of > this view: it means that we can't be confident that we've got The > Answer. But there are some of us who think God may prefer it that > way. Note that the choices for Scripture are not limited to inerrancy > or worthlessness. I firmly believe that God values the process by which we come to know him. The Scriptures do not contain rules of the Pascal programming format: If A = true then do etc. Else etc. You've got to live with people. In "Diary of a Country Priest" an elderly monsignor tells our young priest that he isn't very popular in some circles, probably because "I haven't got a pet theory on how to save people, or I've lost it in one of my pockets." I don't think God has a pet theory for saving people either; salvation is a continuous process, a continuous lifelong process. You can't expect to make people happy in one wretched half-hour a week, the monsignor said. You can't just flip through the Bible one day and expect to learn "The Meaning of Life." It takes work, patience, a little humor, and lots of love to discovering the meaning of life; the Bible is a path not a destination. -- A preachy, _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // nanovx!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia