From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Defending the Faith through Fear (was Inerrancy)
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:16:15 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

jte@psi.com (John Eldredge) writes:

>In article <Sep.1.22.50.25.1992.23561@athos.rutgers.edu> julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>>

>>Finally, I believe it is faith in God (as a person, friend, saviour) that is 
>>essential to salvation, not faith in some "indisputable facts".

>I agree.  Salvation is faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ.  But
>which Jesus?  What work?  James reminds us that the demons believe in God 
>AND TREMBLE, but this will not secure their eternity with God. Faith is
>personal and is in a Person.  However, that Person and what He did is 
...

But they do not believe in him as a saviour and a friend, simply that he
exists. This is not faith in God.

>At issue here is not a call to a dry adherence to a list of facts.  It is
>a dynamic, life-changing belief in the Person and work of Christ.  But,
>if we start with a broken revelation, then all knowledge about Jesus is
>subjective and open for error.  Hardly the basis for the inevitable
>judgement to come.

>Regards,

>John


Not a broken revelation but one too big to be contained in words.
I have a problem with the inerrant view of the Bible in that it
supposes also that we can have perfect knowledge of the inerrant
words of God. As a human being I know I am fallible, and anything I
believe I know is subject to that fallibility. No matter how long
I read the Bible or pray I am still a human being. No preacher or
theologian has a closer approach to God because of their studies.
It is only by my faith that I get close to God at all. BUT, by
studying the Bible, and praying I can learn what God has done in the past.
Then I can live as He leads. If I am wrong on something then I believe that
God will lead me back to truth. BUT this is not the same as saying I know
the truth completely. None of us has a perfect grasp of our faith
(any one care to assert that they have?) so we need to be open to
being corrected.
What I am trying to say here is that the people I talk to who believe
in an infallible Bible seem very concerned to keep this belief in
the forefront of their faith. From my reading of the NT Jesus put more
emphasis on his followers "doing" things than arguing about doctrine.
        
He changed lives rather than wrote books. By any human standards who Jesus
was is incomprehensible. I do not know how to think of God unless I can
relate in some way. Jesus is the way I can understand what kind of a person God
is. But when I look at the christian church I see mainly comfortable people
living off the legacy of centuries of christian imperialism.
If we are to be followers of Christ we should look at how his life ended:
he did not retire to florida on a pension. His life should be the means
of pushing us to live for God (however he calls us to do that, there are
many ways).
But in all this, it is our faith in God not our ability to systamatise
that faith that is essential. If doctrines reveal anything at all about
a transcendent being it will be transcendent. 
The doctrine of infalliblity seems to be a way of making a short-cut to
understanding wwhat God is saying in the Bible, coupled with an inability
to change our understanding based on human experience. Christians are not
immune to error because they hodl to this doctrine (it took a long time
for Christians to relaise slavery was not appointed by God, in spite
of believing in an infallible Bible).
My faith will be no more secure
because of a dubious approach to the Bible, nor will anyone be brought
closer to faith by assertions about the "proof" of accuracy of a book.

I hope someone who has a better grasp of the doctrine of infallibility
can debate this as I would like to know why it is so strongly held
here, compared to my church (and frends, etc) back in England.

julian