From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Defending the Faith through Fear (was Inerrancy)
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:29:12 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

In article <Aug.25.02.17.16.1992.19301@athos.rutgers.edu> jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>
>The legalism which has dominated Christianity in recent decades
>disappoints me.  We seem to be concerned more with proving the
>validity of our own beliefs in the face of another's than to the
>glorification of God.  This is almost always accomplished by
>examination of biblical passages and applying human principles of
>reason and deduction to arrive at a "correct" teaching.  There is
>little room in this process for the Holy Spirit, which I believe is
>the independent, absolute authority the Savior intended for us to
>have.  I don't think Jesus was so interesting in one believer keeping
>another doctrinally "in line" as he was in each individual believer
>keeping himself in line.

I agree that Paul's admonitions especially focused on the believer 
examining, judging, changing his behavior - not bullying others to
tow the line according to whomever.

Part of legalism is the pride and arrogance of individual's who want to
dominate others.  Part of this is because, for some, it is easier not 
to think [biblically] and to just follow a list of "do's and don'ts."

However, in spite of the fallacies of legalism, one still must wrestle
with the authority and inerrancy of Scripture - not to pistol-whip others
but to establish an absolute foundation for beliefs, ethics, morality,
the identity of God, the identity of man et al.  Interpretations are not
enough.  We need absolutes, a nail to hang our hat on.

I do believe Christ was interested in doctrine - a fancy word for truth.
I believe that the polarization in Christianity in this regard has come
from the movement toward two extremes:  unfeeling, objective literalism
and fellings-oriented, subjective zeal.  The ages-old "zeal without 
knowledge; knowledge without zeal."  

1.  I personally believe in inerrancy and the literal interpretation of
Scripture.  I believe there are certain things God wants man to know
clearly and unwaveringly about Himself and His plan.  The extreme of
this, however, is to never trust any "subjective" feelings, even if
they are, in fact, the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

2.  In recent decades, we have seen the other extreme displayed in various
"charismatic" groups [please understand, I am not trying to bash any 
particular denomination].  The extreme here is feeling and enthusiasm even 
if it conflicts with the revealed will of God, as in the Scriptures.

So, literal understanding of an inerrant Scripture is critical to having
any absolute grasp on God's truth, but this still requires one to trust 
the Spirit in himself and others.  Our inward "inclinations" may be the 
world system (ie our culture), our sin nature, our conscience, Satan himself 
or, in fact, God the Holy Spirit.  Each believer must discern these impulses 
to determine which are actually from God.  But, of course, without an
unfailing (ie inerrant) revelation, we are just drifting and any 
discernment is subjective at best and self-serving at worst.

>I think this new legalism speaks a lot for the human race, and
>Christians in particular.  We as a race seem to have arrived at the
>idea that intuition, spiritual manifestations, and other such
>phenomena are inferior to what I might call the "scientific method" --
>reasoning from facts to conclusions.  Actions justified by the former
>and not by the latter are often considered "irrational."  It is
>therefore undesirable to consider a spiritual witness as "evidence"
>supporting one's beliefs and actions, though I believe that is exactly
>the basis Jesus intended for His religion.

I believe the truth has always started first with propositional facts 
presented by God in His word.  Christ was the Word, the fulfillment of 
God's word.  Prophets in the Old Testament were also judged by their adherance
to the previously revealed word of God (Deut 13).  Now, this is not to 
say that the indwelling of the Spirit does not add a dimension of "subjective"
leading - it does, but always consistent with Scripture, never at variance.

The Spirit's leading, though personal to the believer, is not inconsistent 
with God's revelation.  So, subjective leading is legitimate and good, but 
written truth is even better.

>So I think the idea of an inerrant Bible is an attempt to address in
>an intellectual sense the mystical principles and events of
>Christianity.  Reasoning from the assumption that the Bible is
>incontrovertibly true allows it to be the "fact" from which reasoned
>"truths" can be extracted.

An inerrant Bible is God's way to make sure man had the facts about
God correct.  Though God is outside of our time-space reality, it was
His clear intent to communicate His truth to men "where they were," in
ways they could understand.

>But treating the Bible as a reasonably accurate (though not unbiased
>or inerrant) record of Christian history and doctrine, and relying
>upon the gifts of the Holy Spirit to manifest to each and every
>Christian the important truths of salvation results in a faith more
>along the lines of what I see as the original intent of Christianity.
>The Bible is merely one of many tools which allow the believer to come
>to the knowledge of the truth.

The gifts of the Spirit were given to believers AFTER they believed 
certain facts and in order to build up other believers in a local church.
And these gifts were not to allow for contradictions in previously
revealed truth.

Faith is critical to Christianity, but it is faith in specific indisputable
facts that work in salvation.  Only an inerrant Bible can provide that,
since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

John