 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:23 PM (GMT -6) |   |
02/21/01 10:10 PM
Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I humbly apologize if this has been asked/answered ...
Question: In OV, if man can thwart the will of God, how can we be sure Paul, while divinely influenced still tossed in some of his own thoughts? And how about the guys that agreed on what made it into the canon ... could they have by their own free will inserted some stuff that distorted Truth?
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/22/01 12:32 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's funny that you mention Paul tossing in some of his own ideas. Paul does precisely this in 1 Cor. 7:25 where Paul writes: "Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my own opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." (RSV) Is this a distortion of the truth? Well, I can't answer that one But I can tell you this passage is in the canon. What now?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
misslepooch
02/23/01 8:20 PM
RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked, "what now?". I guess I have to believe that everything God wanted us to know made it on the pages of Scripture without ANY untruth. Was Paul divinely inspired when he wrote the Scripture you mentioned? I think, yes. Did Paul know He was divinely inspired when he wrote his letters? I think, yes ... as much as a human can feel right before God. Did Paul know his letters were going to be Scripture like the OT scrolls & parchments he carried? I think, no.
Do I think Paul and others wrote letters that never made it in Scripture ... even though they may have felt inspired by God to write them? I think, yes ... but they weren't included. So to me this means God Himself made certain that what we were to know of Him, man, and His kingdom made it into Scripture without flaw. 100% truth.
Thank you for your reply.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/26/01 2:10 PM
RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What besides your faith in this view supports this view? In otherwords, it sounds unfalsifiable. You insist it is inerrant because you believe it must be inerrant. Why? What DO Paul's words mean when he specifically says these are his ideas and NOT THE LORD'S? look again at verse 12 of I Cor. 7 how can the words "I and not the Lord" be both true and false at the same time? Isn't this way you are claiming? Paul says, I and not the Lord, yet you insist Paul is mistaken about that and it is actually the Lord after all. Again, I say, "What now?"
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
misslepooch
02/26/01 9:59 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoT: I am not saying this verse is both true and false. Nor am I saying that Paul is mistaken. In verse 40 he says, "...according to my judgement - and I think I also have the Spirit of God." God was certain that what Paul wrote was from His heart. Paul, in his humanity was simply giving it his best judgement.
Furthermore in verse 25 Paul states, "I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgement as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy." Just because Paul was not perfectly certain about what he wrote does not detract from its Truthfulness.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
misslepooch
02/26/01 10:06 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoT: One more thing ... an analogy. If you were married to a woman for 35 years and someone asked you what her preference is on a certain new beverage, you would not be able to say with absolute certainly what she may think ... AND you couldn't say, "I've discussed this with my wife and she would love/hate it." But you could give an extremely learned judgement based on your intimate knowledge of her and her other choices.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/27/01 10:55 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks, this is what is called a "forced harmonization". One forces a harmonization of two differing texts when one's assumptions about what a text could possibly mean are challenged. A faithful reading of the text here must take Paul to mean what he clearly says in I Cor. 7:12 & 25. Paul's appealing to the Spirit of God in him is not qualitatively different that a christian today appealing to the Spirit of God (vs 40) in matters of ethical import. Note that Paul says, "I think that I too have the Spirit of God." This only puts Paul's judgment on equal par with, not above, the other Christians claiming to speak with authority based upon the Spirit of God's work in them. Earlier in verse 40 Paul again claims the credit for the judgment, "But in my judgment..." so vs. 40 does not conflict with but confirm that Paul is speaking on his own behalf and not God's. Let us be reasonable.
Why else would Paul call attention to the fact that it is he speaking now rather than the Lord, than that he wants to protect us from being decieved into thinking that his opinion is tha of God!! And you would take this qualification away from him? This is precisely what he was trying to avoid.
What would Paul have to have said if he were to try to convince you, Misslepooch, that it is Paul who is speaking here, and NOT the Lord? Would it suffice for Paul to say: "I and not the Lord," or "I have no command of the Lord, but I give MY opinion"? This is precisely what Paul does say!! You only cannot hear it because you have ruled out the possibility that a biblical author could say such things.
This is in fact what is behind the need to force a harmonization. This is not one of the more confusing texts in Scripture. If we cannot be clear about what is meant here (specifically 7:12 & 25), I will be worried that it is hopeless to expect any real meaning to emerge transpersonally from much more complicated and ambiguous texts.
MP, your reading clearly goes against the sense of the texts here. If it were not for your particular understanding of inerrancy, you would not do this, I trust. By the way, I think that I too have the Spirit of God, and it is not clear to me that we ought to be so threatened by Paul speaking as a human being with an opinion for that time and place, especially since he so clearly qualifies it. I would sooner revise my view of inerrancy than ignore or work around the plain sense of a text where it is so clearly against my view. It is quite another thing to distort Scripture for the sake of one's security of mind about its trustworthiness (note the irony of this!). This distortion is dangerous and not only does it cause cognitive disonance, it strikes a blow AGAINST "biblical trustworthiness" (as the distorter understands it) because that person forfeits credibility before those who read the texts more carefully. As I trust that you are a faithful Christian, I implore you, do not pursue this distortion. Change your expection to fit the texts rather than force the texts to fit YOUR expections and requirements for "Truthfulness".
Blessings on you as you consider this.
concerned...
Modes
ps. to really get down to the nuts and bolts of it, would you say that it is better for a person (would you dare say women only?) to not be married that for them to be married? Is this God's word on the matter?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
jugofmud
02/27/01 5:05 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: With all due respect I find your interpretation of 1 Cor 7 unbelievable. When Paul contrasts his “command” or “opinion” with that of the Lord’s, he is not saying “I am speaking here and God is not.” You seem to suggest that Paul can turn on and off inspiration. What Paul is stating here is that where there is a clear command from Jesus (note Paul uses kurios, “Lord” to refer to Jesus and Theos to refer to God. Do a word search of 1 Cor and see for yourself), he quotes him. Where there is not a clear command from Jesus Paul gives his command, which by the way is on equal footing with Jesus’ commands, since he is an apostle. Paul is not expecting a counterproposal here. Paul is letting the Corinthians know what he expects, which is what God expects, yet is not a clear command from Jesus found in the teachings of Jesus. Paul is NOT making a distinction between his inspired words and his uninspired words. Rather, he IS stating what Jesus clearly taught and what Jesus did not clearly teach, and he expects both his commands and the words of Jesus to be followed. Modes, again with due respect, please consult a commentary before writing on this passage, lest you impose your theological presuppositions on the text. Formed from Dirt, jugofmud
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
misslepooch
02/27/01 5:11 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoT: I suppose I disagree with your argument that my response is "forced harmonization". I simply gave what I thought was a credible line of reasonable thought to the Scripture you chose. I still hold that Paul, while speaking from his own heart, got this Right, even though in his humanity he didn't feel as certain as, say, quoting OT Scripture. If you agree in the inerrancy of Scripture, why don't you tell me how you came to that belief. If you don't, tell me what use Scripture is to you if you don't know what is truth and what may have been the mistaken opinions of the human author.
If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then all of Paul's teaching could be considered "forced harmonization" because he "forced" many of his arguments based on the OT.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/27/01 5:29 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThough t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jugo...Actually I have read some commentaries on I Cor. but thanks for the recommendation it is a good one.
As for your point, it is interesting but unconvincing in terms of the implications you draw from it. It also doesn't get to the root of the problem. I am NOT saying that Paul is turning God's inspiration on and off (though you may fear that as an implication). Your doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy should not determine the meaning of these texts, but perhaps emerge out of honest engagement with them. 3 points (as might be expected:)
1. You say that "Paul is not expecting a counterproposal here. Paul is letting the Corinthians know what he expects, which is what God expects, yet is not a clear command from Jesus found in the teachings of Jesus." But yet we see that Paul just got done offering the counterproposal. Look at verses 36-38. It does come down to a matter of discernment beyond the mind of Paul here.
2. What does Paul mean by "But in my judgment..." in verse 40?
3. Furthermore what does Paul mean by "And I think that I too have the Spirit of God."? The "I too" is now comparing Paul ("I") to Jesus having the Spirit of God? That is not supported in this context. Besides we know that all Christians have the Spirit of God, so the question is unnecessary. But the above references do support the idea that there is some discussion, perhaps even debate about what virgins, and widows and others should do. Paul is offering pastoral guidance. The qualifications fit well with the ambiguity of the situation as expressed in verses 36-38.
I don't think we ought to wager the integrity of Scripture on whether one can maintain a particular view of inerrancy while reading it. It still looks like forced harmonizing to that effect.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Misevac
02/27/01 5:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThough t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes:
I completely agree with your interpretaion-thank you for posting it!
Jugofmud:
I need help to understand your statement:
"Where there is not a clear command from Jesus Paul gives his command, which by the way is on equal footing with Jesus' commands, since he is an apostle."
Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion.
Also: Can someone answer Modes question....do you guys think that it is better not to marry and that this is God's intention?
Misevac
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
02/27/01 5:56 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThough t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great questions!
There are two basic errors one can fall into with regard to the authority of Scripture. 1. reducing it to merely propositional claims that must be assented to. 2. reducing it to merely experiential possibilities for personal enlightenment. Both are problematic.
We need to recognize that God's Word (including Jesus Christ, the Bible and other ways God chooses to manifest God's Word) is active and must be both encountered and assented to. God's Word doesn't merely claim something, IT DOES SOMETHING! This "doing" aspect of the Bible has to do with The Spirit of God which is almost equivocal to the "power of God." What does God intend this Word to do? That is the question to be asked. Not how can I reduce this verse to a proposition that answers my question "true or false?" Read I Cor. 7:36-38. Now tell me, to marry is sin, true or false? Or to remain unmarried is sin, true or false? You see what I am getting at, I trust. What is God doing here? How can we draw on the wisdom present in this text to illuminate and offer wisdom for our context? This is how the Bible is inerrant: The wisdom that God offers to us through these texts is wisdom indeed. Let's keep it real.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
whasssuuuppp
02/27/01 9:03 PM
BETTER NOT TO MARRY?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I'm not going to enter the line of discussion about inerrancy of scripture, but you also asked about whether it is God's ideal that we don't get married. Hmmmm. See now this is kind of a funny question, because if it is God's ideal, then most Christians are settling for God's non-ideal. Is that good? Probably not. But would I want the 95% of Christians who don't have the gift of celibacy walking around unmarried? Um, that'd be a no.
What I think Paul IS saying:
I think Paul makes a true observation, that one's life, in general is more FREE for those who are not married, in terms of making big decisions. The paths we are able to go down get narrower as we get older and as we make decisions. Before you get married, say you have, for example 100 paths you could choose. After, that probably drops to 10 or less (you know what I'm saying). So in terms of following God's calling in your life, maybe it IS better to remain unmarried.
BUT----(before you call my crazy)
I just have to think that Paul might me giving his OPINION here, know what I'm saying (uh-oh, I guess this is getting into the inerrancy/inspiration debate. I didn't mean to!). At the very least, Paul at least makes the exception, that if you are going to burn with passion (loose paraphrase), you probably should get married. So I say that the 95% of us who don't have the gift of celibacy are those who are going to burn with passion, so we should get married! I sure plan on it.
ms. wassup
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/27/01 10:18 PM
Doc Pontificat es
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Pontificates on the three topics of this thread:
1) To the original question: Nothing in OVT prevents God from exercising however much influence he needs to in order to insure whatever results he wants. An OVT could affirm inerrancy, therefore, simply by saying, as conservative evangelicals always have, that God protected their writings from error.
2) On I Cor. 7: I tend to agree with Jugofmud that it is one thing for Paul to contrast his "opinion" with the teachings of the Lord, another to contrast his "opinion" with inspiration. He does the former, not the latter.
3) On Paul's statement about it being better not to marry... Paul says "in view of the impending crisis" (vs26) its better to remain single. Ten years later persecution broke out. It WAS better to be single. So it is in every similar situation, but not in principle.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
02/28/01 11:16 AM
RE: Doc Pontificat es
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd
1 and 3 I grant you. These are not in dispute. However, I don't see what your #2 adds to the discussion. You say that Paul distinguishes his opinion from that of the Lord's, I agree, but what then does it mean that he does NOT contrast his opinion with "inspiriation" here? What does that clause add to our understanding really? Why even bring it up? Is Paul not in some way qualifying his opinion so that it is in some sense less authoritatively binding, perhaps because of the inherent ambiguity of the situation? Would we not speak of several levels of distinction here?
a. Paul refers to the teaching of the Lord and ascribes highest authority to said teachings (7:10 "-not I but the Lord-"),
b. Paul refers to his own discernment perhaps not as clear in its authority, but still very authoritative (7:12 "-I and not the Lord-")
c. Paul offers his own opinion and qualifies it as such. This qualification must have some meaning!! (7:25 & 40, "I ahve no command oftheLord but I give my own opinion..." and "but in my judgment")
Isn't it obvious that these distinctions that Paul offers regarding his various teachings are threatened--even violated--by superimposing a particular view of inerrancy over them? I agree that Paul is not directly addressing inspiriation here, but shouldn't he have if Jugofmud's interpretation is correct? Paul does not bring up inspiration per se but he does qualify the authority of various teachings this cannot be denied without violating the sense of the texts.
I don't have much invested in maintaining three distinctions as listed above, though for now they seem plausible, but if I read this passage with any integrity at all, I must acknowledge SOME distinctions with regard to authority here! The critical connecting question will be, what is the relationship between one's view of inerrancy/inspiriation and the way such texts function authoritatively. Paul is addressing the latter more directly than the former, certainly.
Furthermore, Paul's reference in vs. 40 is to others who are speaking with claims to the power of the Spirit. In the book as a whole we know that an important theme is that of the "strong" and "weak," or the carnal and spiritual Christians. Surely we must attend to that contextual reality and acknowledge that Paul is comparing his authority to that of other leaders in the church when he says "I too have the Spirit of God." Jugofmud's reading would seem to require that the "I too" refers to Christ and inspiration (which Paul too now has). I think that is an unreasonable stretch given the scope of the issues in I Cor. as a whole. You would think at least that Paul would take up the topic of his co-inspired-status-which-is-now-equivolent-to-Christ more directly and clearly for the sake of avoiding confusion with other central themes of this letter. What he does instead here is give us several different forms of qualification which affect the level of authority which the text has for his audience. This is getting interesting...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
jugofmud
02/28/01 9:32 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThou gh t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: Thanks for your reply! I confess I may have been too eager to post without qualifying my statement. Yes, I too (with the majority of others) believe that Paul is giving his opinion in vv. 25 and 40, for that---as you pointed out---is what the text says. I was more intent on being clear concerning vv. 12-24, where it is Paul giving a command and not the Lord. In an earlier note you equated Paul’s statement in v. 12 “But to the rest I say, not the Lord…” with the opinions of Paul in vv. 25 and 40. Vv. 12, 25, and 40 are not the same. V. 12 is a command by Paul which is to be read as equal to Jesus’ command not to divorce (v. 10), but vv. 25 and 40 are opinions which should be followed, but are not commands. Remember that Paul is answering the aphorism which the Corinthians stated to Paul (7:1). Paul evidently was sympathetic to their view, but could not let the aphorism pass without qualification. Thus Paul first qualifies the aphorism by a command from the Lord (v. 10), which if disobeyed would be sin. Next he gives his own command (v. 12), which disobeyed would be sin. Lastly he offers his own opinion (vv. 25 and 40), which if not followed would not necessarily be sin (vv. 28 and 36). Also, the fact that Paul is giving opinions does not mean that he believes them to be any less inspired, for Paul at other places equates what he states as that which the Lord speaks. For Paul writes in 1 Cor 14:37-38, “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not to be recognized.” Thus, when dealing with Paul’s commands, opinions, and restatements of the Lord’s commands, one ought to be careful in drawing too fine of a line. For Paul is not required to preface his commands from the Lord with the prophetic phrase “Thus says the Lord…” for his writings to be considered commandments of the Lord. All he must do is scribe what the Lord gives him to write. Concerning the question whether or not one is to marry, it is clear from Paul (and my experience as a married Christian) that it is better not to marry. But one must also remember as Paul states, “But if you marry, you have not sinned…” (v. 28). The married Christian’s affections are divided between the world and God. As Paul states it, one without a spouse does not have this added pressure, while living in the last days anticipating the Parousia. I hope this clears up my initial statements. jugofmud
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
02/28/01 11:17 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting thread. Nice work.
I like the part about God's word going beyond claiming something and having power. It gives it that edge. Sharper than a two edged sword.
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/08/01 12:04 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone else gonna comment on this thread? It almost fell off the first page of our thread list! I think its good for some more discussion. Just curious...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/08/01 7:58 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Modes on the scripture being inspired instead of innerant.
Why is it so important to prove the scriptures are innerant when we know they are inspired? What does this approach safegaurd against?
still learning
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MetroIceberg
03/08/01 10:12 PM
RE: Better not to marry...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Let me just state here that much of this is conjucture on my part, based on my studies of the history of Biblibal times, and based on my views of Paul's reasons. I am merely speaking from my personal, flawed understanding. Feel free to eviscerate me about posting my opinions, though I do believe they shed some insight on the meaning of these scriptures.)
Ok, everybody. Let's remember what I Corinthians and all other "epistles" are: Letters to specific churches in Asia Minor and the Mediteranian, dealing with specific issues within each of those churches. If you read into the history of that area, when Paul said that it be better to stay unmarried, as he was, you will find that the religious persecution of the Christians continued. Paul was not only speaking of keeping oneself set aside for service to God, which he was most assuredly hinting at, but that he believed, in my opinion, and rightly so, that marriage in such a time as that would have only brought on more problems. Could not the authorities of the time have used a spouse to gain information about those other believers who were rightly in hiding?
Paul was only giving wise counsel for the times. It's alot easier to die for God, if you are not bonded, in the mystery of marriage, to another who absolutely does not want you dead.
Just my opinion.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 >>
02/21/01 10:10 PM
Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I humbly apologize if this has been asked/answered ...
Question: In OV, if man can thwart the will of God, how can we be sure Paul, while divinely influenced still tossed in some of his own thoughts? And how about the guys that agreed on what made it into the canon ... could they have by their own free will inserted some stuff that distorted Truth?
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/22/01 12:32 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's funny that you mention Paul tossing in some of his own ideas. Paul does precisely this in 1 Cor. 7:25 where Paul writes: "Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my own opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." (RSV) Is this a distortion of the truth? Well, I can't answer that one But I can tell you this passage is in the canon. What now?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
misslepooch
02/23/01 8:20 PM
RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked, "what now?". I guess I have to believe that everything God wanted us to know made it on the pages of Scripture without ANY untruth. Was Paul divinely inspired when he wrote the Scripture you mentioned? I think, yes. Did Paul know He was divinely inspired when he wrote his letters? I think, yes ... as much as a human can feel right before God. Did Paul know his letters were going to be Scripture like the OT scrolls & parchments he carried? I think, no.
Do I think Paul and others wrote letters that never made it in Scripture ... even though they may have felt inspired by God to write them? I think, yes ... but they weren't included. So to me this means God Himself made certain that what we were to know of Him, man, and His kingdom made it into Scripture without flaw. 100% truth.
Thank you for your reply.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/26/01 2:10 PM
RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What besides your faith in this view supports this view? In otherwords, it sounds unfalsifiable. You insist it is inerrant because you believe it must be inerrant. Why? What DO Paul's words mean when he specifically says these are his ideas and NOT THE LORD'S? look again at verse 12 of I Cor. 7 how can the words "I and not the Lord" be both true and false at the same time? Isn't this way you are claiming? Paul says, I and not the Lord, yet you insist Paul is mistaken about that and it is actually the Lord after all. Again, I say, "What now?"
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
misslepooch
02/26/01 9:59 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoT: I am not saying this verse is both true and false. Nor am I saying that Paul is mistaken. In verse 40 he says, "...according to my judgement - and I think I also have the Spirit of God." God was certain that what Paul wrote was from His heart. Paul, in his humanity was simply giving it his best judgement.
Furthermore in verse 25 Paul states, "I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgement as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy." Just because Paul was not perfectly certain about what he wrote does not detract from its Truthfulness.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
misslepooch
02/26/01 10:06 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoT: One more thing ... an analogy. If you were married to a woman for 35 years and someone asked you what her preference is on a certain new beverage, you would not be able to say with absolute certainly what she may think ... AND you couldn't say, "I've discussed this with my wife and she would love/hate it." But you could give an extremely learned judgement based on your intimate knowledge of her and her other choices.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/27/01 10:55 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks, this is what is called a "forced harmonization". One forces a harmonization of two differing texts when one's assumptions about what a text could possibly mean are challenged. A faithful reading of the text here must take Paul to mean what he clearly says in I Cor. 7:12 & 25. Paul's appealing to the Spirit of God in him is not qualitatively different that a christian today appealing to the Spirit of God (vs 40) in matters of ethical import. Note that Paul says, "I think that I too have the Spirit of God." This only puts Paul's judgment on equal par with, not above, the other Christians claiming to speak with authority based upon the Spirit of God's work in them. Earlier in verse 40 Paul again claims the credit for the judgment, "But in my judgment..." so vs. 40 does not conflict with but confirm that Paul is speaking on his own behalf and not God's. Let us be reasonable.
Why else would Paul call attention to the fact that it is he speaking now rather than the Lord, than that he wants to protect us from being decieved into thinking that his opinion is tha of God!! And you would take this qualification away from him? This is precisely what he was trying to avoid.
What would Paul have to have said if he were to try to convince you, Misslepooch, that it is Paul who is speaking here, and NOT the Lord? Would it suffice for Paul to say: "I and not the Lord," or "I have no command of the Lord, but I give MY opinion"? This is precisely what Paul does say!! You only cannot hear it because you have ruled out the possibility that a biblical author could say such things.
This is in fact what is behind the need to force a harmonization. This is not one of the more confusing texts in Scripture. If we cannot be clear about what is meant here (specifically 7:12 & 25), I will be worried that it is hopeless to expect any real meaning to emerge transpersonally from much more complicated and ambiguous texts.
MP, your reading clearly goes against the sense of the texts here. If it were not for your particular understanding of inerrancy, you would not do this, I trust. By the way, I think that I too have the Spirit of God, and it is not clear to me that we ought to be so threatened by Paul speaking as a human being with an opinion for that time and place, especially since he so clearly qualifies it. I would sooner revise my view of inerrancy than ignore or work around the plain sense of a text where it is so clearly against my view. It is quite another thing to distort Scripture for the sake of one's security of mind about its trustworthiness (note the irony of this!). This distortion is dangerous and not only does it cause cognitive disonance, it strikes a blow AGAINST "biblical trustworthiness" (as the distorter understands it) because that person forfeits credibility before those who read the texts more carefully. As I trust that you are a faithful Christian, I implore you, do not pursue this distortion. Change your expection to fit the texts rather than force the texts to fit YOUR expections and requirements for "Truthfulness".
Blessings on you as you consider this.
concerned...
Modes
ps. to really get down to the nuts and bolts of it, would you say that it is better for a person (would you dare say women only?) to not be married that for them to be married? Is this God's word on the matter?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
jugofmud
02/27/01 5:05 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: With all due respect I find your interpretation of 1 Cor 7 unbelievable. When Paul contrasts his “command” or “opinion” with that of the Lord’s, he is not saying “I am speaking here and God is not.” You seem to suggest that Paul can turn on and off inspiration. What Paul is stating here is that where there is a clear command from Jesus (note Paul uses kurios, “Lord” to refer to Jesus and Theos to refer to God. Do a word search of 1 Cor and see for yourself), he quotes him. Where there is not a clear command from Jesus Paul gives his command, which by the way is on equal footing with Jesus’ commands, since he is an apostle. Paul is not expecting a counterproposal here. Paul is letting the Corinthians know what he expects, which is what God expects, yet is not a clear command from Jesus found in the teachings of Jesus. Paul is NOT making a distinction between his inspired words and his uninspired words. Rather, he IS stating what Jesus clearly taught and what Jesus did not clearly teach, and he expects both his commands and the words of Jesus to be followed. Modes, again with due respect, please consult a commentary before writing on this passage, lest you impose your theological presuppositions on the text. Formed from Dirt, jugofmud
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
misslepooch
02/27/01 5:11 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoT: I suppose I disagree with your argument that my response is "forced harmonization". I simply gave what I thought was a credible line of reasonable thought to the Scripture you chose. I still hold that Paul, while speaking from his own heart, got this Right, even though in his humanity he didn't feel as certain as, say, quoting OT Scripture. If you agree in the inerrancy of Scripture, why don't you tell me how you came to that belief. If you don't, tell me what use Scripture is to you if you don't know what is truth and what may have been the mistaken opinions of the human author.
If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then all of Paul's teaching could be considered "forced harmonization" because he "forced" many of his arguments based on the OT.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/27/01 5:29 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThough t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jugo...Actually I have read some commentaries on I Cor. but thanks for the recommendation it is a good one.
As for your point, it is interesting but unconvincing in terms of the implications you draw from it. It also doesn't get to the root of the problem. I am NOT saying that Paul is turning God's inspiration on and off (though you may fear that as an implication). Your doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy should not determine the meaning of these texts, but perhaps emerge out of honest engagement with them. 3 points (as might be expected:)
1. You say that "Paul is not expecting a counterproposal here. Paul is letting the Corinthians know what he expects, which is what God expects, yet is not a clear command from Jesus found in the teachings of Jesus." But yet we see that Paul just got done offering the counterproposal. Look at verses 36-38. It does come down to a matter of discernment beyond the mind of Paul here.
2. What does Paul mean by "But in my judgment..." in verse 40?
3. Furthermore what does Paul mean by "And I think that I too have the Spirit of God."? The "I too" is now comparing Paul ("I") to Jesus having the Spirit of God? That is not supported in this context. Besides we know that all Christians have the Spirit of God, so the question is unnecessary. But the above references do support the idea that there is some discussion, perhaps even debate about what virgins, and widows and others should do. Paul is offering pastoral guidance. The qualifications fit well with the ambiguity of the situation as expressed in verses 36-38.
I don't think we ought to wager the integrity of Scripture on whether one can maintain a particular view of inerrancy while reading it. It still looks like forced harmonizing to that effect.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Misevac
02/27/01 5:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThough t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes:
I completely agree with your interpretaion-thank you for posting it!
Jugofmud:
I need help to understand your statement:
"Where there is not a clear command from Jesus Paul gives his command, which by the way is on equal footing with Jesus' commands, since he is an apostle."
Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion.
Also: Can someone answer Modes question....do you guys think that it is better not to marry and that this is God's intention?
Misevac
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
02/27/01 5:56 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThough t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great questions!
There are two basic errors one can fall into with regard to the authority of Scripture. 1. reducing it to merely propositional claims that must be assented to. 2. reducing it to merely experiential possibilities for personal enlightenment. Both are problematic.
We need to recognize that God's Word (including Jesus Christ, the Bible and other ways God chooses to manifest God's Word) is active and must be both encountered and assented to. God's Word doesn't merely claim something, IT DOES SOMETHING! This "doing" aspect of the Bible has to do with The Spirit of God which is almost equivocal to the "power of God." What does God intend this Word to do? That is the question to be asked. Not how can I reduce this verse to a proposition that answers my question "true or false?" Read I Cor. 7:36-38. Now tell me, to marry is sin, true or false? Or to remain unmarried is sin, true or false? You see what I am getting at, I trust. What is God doing here? How can we draw on the wisdom present in this text to illuminate and offer wisdom for our context? This is how the Bible is inerrant: The wisdom that God offers to us through these texts is wisdom indeed. Let's keep it real.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
whasssuuuppp
02/27/01 9:03 PM
BETTER NOT TO MARRY?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I'm not going to enter the line of discussion about inerrancy of scripture, but you also asked about whether it is God's ideal that we don't get married. Hmmmm. See now this is kind of a funny question, because if it is God's ideal, then most Christians are settling for God's non-ideal. Is that good? Probably not. But would I want the 95% of Christians who don't have the gift of celibacy walking around unmarried? Um, that'd be a no.
What I think Paul IS saying:
I think Paul makes a true observation, that one's life, in general is more FREE for those who are not married, in terms of making big decisions. The paths we are able to go down get narrower as we get older and as we make decisions. Before you get married, say you have, for example 100 paths you could choose. After, that probably drops to 10 or less (you know what I'm saying). So in terms of following God's calling in your life, maybe it IS better to remain unmarried.
BUT----(before you call my crazy)
I just have to think that Paul might me giving his OPINION here, know what I'm saying (uh-oh, I guess this is getting into the inerrancy/inspiration debate. I didn't mean to!). At the very least, Paul at least makes the exception, that if you are going to burn with passion (loose paraphrase), you probably should get married. So I say that the 95% of us who don't have the gift of celibacy are those who are going to burn with passion, so we should get married! I sure plan on it.
ms. wassup
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/27/01 10:18 PM
Doc Pontificat es
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Pontificates on the three topics of this thread:
1) To the original question: Nothing in OVT prevents God from exercising however much influence he needs to in order to insure whatever results he wants. An OVT could affirm inerrancy, therefore, simply by saying, as conservative evangelicals always have, that God protected their writings from error.
2) On I Cor. 7: I tend to agree with Jugofmud that it is one thing for Paul to contrast his "opinion" with the teachings of the Lord, another to contrast his "opinion" with inspiration. He does the former, not the latter.
3) On Paul's statement about it being better not to marry... Paul says "in view of the impending crisis" (vs26) its better to remain single. Ten years later persecution broke out. It WAS better to be single. So it is in every similar situation, but not in principle.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
02/28/01 11:16 AM
RE: Doc Pontificat es
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd
1 and 3 I grant you. These are not in dispute. However, I don't see what your #2 adds to the discussion. You say that Paul distinguishes his opinion from that of the Lord's, I agree, but what then does it mean that he does NOT contrast his opinion with "inspiriation" here? What does that clause add to our understanding really? Why even bring it up? Is Paul not in some way qualifying his opinion so that it is in some sense less authoritatively binding, perhaps because of the inherent ambiguity of the situation? Would we not speak of several levels of distinction here?
a. Paul refers to the teaching of the Lord and ascribes highest authority to said teachings (7:10 "-not I but the Lord-"),
b. Paul refers to his own discernment perhaps not as clear in its authority, but still very authoritative (7:12 "-I and not the Lord-")
c. Paul offers his own opinion and qualifies it as such. This qualification must have some meaning!! (7:25 & 40, "I ahve no command oftheLord but I give my own opinion..." and "but in my judgment")
Isn't it obvious that these distinctions that Paul offers regarding his various teachings are threatened--even violated--by superimposing a particular view of inerrancy over them? I agree that Paul is not directly addressing inspiriation here, but shouldn't he have if Jugofmud's interpretation is correct? Paul does not bring up inspiration per se but he does qualify the authority of various teachings this cannot be denied without violating the sense of the texts.
I don't have much invested in maintaining three distinctions as listed above, though for now they seem plausible, but if I read this passage with any integrity at all, I must acknowledge SOME distinctions with regard to authority here! The critical connecting question will be, what is the relationship between one's view of inerrancy/inspiriation and the way such texts function authoritatively. Paul is addressing the latter more directly than the former, certainly.
Furthermore, Paul's reference in vs. 40 is to others who are speaking with claims to the power of the Spirit. In the book as a whole we know that an important theme is that of the "strong" and "weak," or the carnal and spiritual Christians. Surely we must attend to that contextual reality and acknowledge that Paul is comparing his authority to that of other leaders in the church when he says "I too have the Spirit of God." Jugofmud's reading would seem to require that the "I too" refers to Christ and inspiration (which Paul too now has). I think that is an unreasonable stretch given the scope of the issues in I Cor. as a whole. You would think at least that Paul would take up the topic of his co-inspired-status-which-is-now-equivolent-to-Christ more directly and clearly for the sake of avoiding confusion with other central themes of this letter. What he does instead here is give us several different forms of qualification which affect the level of authority which the text has for his audience. This is getting interesting...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
jugofmud
02/28/01 9:32 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Inerrancy of Scripture TO: ModesofThou gh t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: Thanks for your reply! I confess I may have been too eager to post without qualifying my statement. Yes, I too (with the majority of others) believe that Paul is giving his opinion in vv. 25 and 40, for that---as you pointed out---is what the text says. I was more intent on being clear concerning vv. 12-24, where it is Paul giving a command and not the Lord. In an earlier note you equated Paul’s statement in v. 12 “But to the rest I say, not the Lord…” with the opinions of Paul in vv. 25 and 40. Vv. 12, 25, and 40 are not the same. V. 12 is a command by Paul which is to be read as equal to Jesus’ command not to divorce (v. 10), but vv. 25 and 40 are opinions which should be followed, but are not commands. Remember that Paul is answering the aphorism which the Corinthians stated to Paul (7:1). Paul evidently was sympathetic to their view, but could not let the aphorism pass without qualification. Thus Paul first qualifies the aphorism by a command from the Lord (v. 10), which if disobeyed would be sin. Next he gives his own command (v. 12), which disobeyed would be sin. Lastly he offers his own opinion (vv. 25 and 40), which if not followed would not necessarily be sin (vv. 28 and 36). Also, the fact that Paul is giving opinions does not mean that he believes them to be any less inspired, for Paul at other places equates what he states as that which the Lord speaks. For Paul writes in 1 Cor 14:37-38, “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not to be recognized.” Thus, when dealing with Paul’s commands, opinions, and restatements of the Lord’s commands, one ought to be careful in drawing too fine of a line. For Paul is not required to preface his commands from the Lord with the prophetic phrase “Thus says the Lord…” for his writings to be considered commandments of the Lord. All he must do is scribe what the Lord gives him to write. Concerning the question whether or not one is to marry, it is clear from Paul (and my experience as a married Christian) that it is better not to marry. But one must also remember as Paul states, “But if you marry, you have not sinned…” (v. 28). The married Christian’s affections are divided between the world and God. As Paul states it, one without a spouse does not have this added pressure, while living in the last days anticipating the Parousia. I hope this clears up my initial statements. jugofmud
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
02/28/01 11:17 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting thread. Nice work.
I like the part about God's word going beyond claiming something and having power. It gives it that edge. Sharper than a two edged sword.
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/08/01 12:04 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone else gonna comment on this thread? It almost fell off the first page of our thread list! I think its good for some more discussion. Just curious...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/08/01 7:58 PM
RE: Inerrancy of Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Modes on the scripture being inspired instead of innerant.
Why is it so important to prove the scriptures are innerant when we know they are inspired? What does this approach safegaurd against?
still learning
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MetroIceberg
03/08/01 10:12 PM
RE: Better not to marry...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Let me just state here that much of this is conjucture on my part, based on my studies of the history of Biblibal times, and based on my views of Paul's reasons. I am merely speaking from my personal, flawed understanding. Feel free to eviscerate me about posting my opinions, though I do believe they shed some insight on the meaning of these scriptures.)
Ok, everybody. Let's remember what I Corinthians and all other "epistles" are: Letters to specific churches in Asia Minor and the Mediteranian, dealing with specific issues within each of those churches. If you read into the history of that area, when Paul said that it be better to stay unmarried, as he was, you will find that the religious persecution of the Christians continued. Paul was not only speaking of keeping oneself set aside for service to God, which he was most assuredly hinting at, but that he believed, in my opinion, and rightly so, that marriage in such a time as that would have only brought on more problems. Could not the authorities of the time have used a spouse to gain information about those other believers who were rightly in hiding?
Paul was only giving wise counsel for the times. It's alot easier to die for God, if you are not bonded, in the mystery of marriage, to another who absolutely does not want you dead.
Just my opinion.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 >>
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:54 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|