Angellous vs Angellous: Is the Bible Inerrant? (Jesus Christ, reject, Creator)

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous has consistently argued that the Holy Bible is riddled with scribal errors and such, and I intend to argue against this destructive position.

Biblical inerrantcy has been the hallmark of American Protestant theology since Charles Hodge. It is used to sustain the justification for the very existence of the Protestant church - it's central cornerstone sola scriptura. If the Bible does have errors, then we as the people of God - the Church - must have some compensation from external and internal interpreters. That is, if we cannot read the Bible for ourselves as the perfect word of God as the sole rule for chuch life, then we need other readers such as scholars, pastors, and friends and enemies of Christianity to act as preists and help us to locate the true Word of God in Scripture.

I will argue that inerrancy is:

1) Biblically supported
2) Historically supported
3) An essential part of the historical and contemporary Christian confession
4) Needed for the mission and ministry of the contemporary church

[angellous_evangellous]

Wow.


I think that this may be the first time that I've been called out in a one-on-one debate.


I don't think that you are going to be able to successfully defend any of your points. Will you be following the Chicago statement then, or a more comtemporary fairy-tale?

I will argue against you in blue font so as not to confuse you.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Wow.

I think that this may be the first time that I've been called out in a one-on-one debate.

I don't think that you are going to be able to successfully defend any of your points. Will you be following the Chicago statement then, or a more comtemporary fairy-tale?

We can start with the Chicago statement and work our way forward.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

We can start with the Chicago statement and work our way forward.

Fine. I'll be very impressed if you've actually read this before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#The_Conservative_Protestant_pos ition

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

[angellous_evangellous]

**

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Undoubtebly so.

**

[angellous_evangellous]

I suppose that my protests center on the presuppositions of the summary statement. All of the errors in the Chicago statement flow from the faulty suppositions.

From the Chicago Statement:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

No dispute here.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

This can be improved by striking the misogynistic "men" with "human beings." I cannot accept "infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches" because the Bible itself does not make this claim, and it sounds ignorant and stupid to accept a 2000 yr old document like this.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

Perhaps, but we are too often closed.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

I fully reject all of this statement.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

I fully reject all of this statement as well.

[angellous_evangellous]

So you don't deny that the Scripture is from God, and basically argue against the doctrine of plenary inspiration and you don't see this heresy as a threat to the church?