Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 9 Feb 90 07:27:43 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. Lines: 73 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , ncsatl!smith_c@gatech.edu writes: [1] [2] > 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. These two sentences seem to contradict each other (although this may be due to my flawed understanding of what the writer really means by the first sentence). Should the words "Some of" precede this first sentence? And of course the second sentence allows me to empathize with Darren Provine who asks some posters to express controversial ideas as opinions rather than as a "given". [3] > I'm perfectly content regarding the Bible as theologically inerrant. [4] > 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. I have the same questions about section [3] and [4] above as I did sections [1] and [2]. When you make the statement number [3], one can only assume that you mean all of the Bible. Then reading through section [4] you clarify your position from one seemingly referring to all of the "theological portions of the Bible" to an astoundingly small percentage of it. I've read a paper on this that a Catholic theologian gave me a while back, and had the same questions then about this position as I do now. I guess I have a semantical objection to statements [1] and [3] given your clarifications provided in [2] and [4]. The aforementioned theologian also made statements similar to [1] and [3] which in my opinion seem in conflict (or at the very least misleading) to what you really believe. I believe that the qualifier "some" would help reduce this conflict. The poster (sorry for the formality but I couldn't tell your name from the posting) then states: > salvation is a continuous process, a continuous lifelong process. There seems to be substantial amount of Scriptural evidence which would show that a person, after trusting in Jesus Christ by faith is saved and justified (past tense). Just a few minutes with a concordance looking up the words "saved" and "justified" will make this evident. The most obvious that comes to mind is the ever famous Eph 2:8,9 "For by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED through faith. It is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Gal 3:24 and Titus 3:7 talk about folks (still alive at the time) who already have been justified. Given you believe that the Bible is theologically inerrant, would the above passages and 1 Cor 6:11 below fall into the seemingly large "exception category?" 1 Cor 6:11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403 [I think the distinction he's trying to make is not one of extent but of purpose. That is, he's not proposing that only part of the Bible is authoritative, but rather than there are only certain kinds of questions that you can expect it to answer. --clh]