From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Defending the Faith through Fear (was Inerrancy)
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:18:49 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

OK.  I haven't been able to read any of the previous inerrancy threads, so this
stuff may have been covered before.  I apologize in advance if it has been.

(note that for this discussion, I am using "the Bible" interchanably with
 "Sacred Scripture")

This is in response mostly to the "Conversion from Fear" discussion and Rex's
assertion that errancy inevitably leads to apostasy.  The main issue in
this case is how one defines apostasy and inerrancy.  I get the impression
that Rex's operating definition of inerrancy is similar to the one used by
the sterotypical fundamentalist:  "Unless a good reason exists to assume a
given phrase is figurative, assume it is literal.  Furthermore, this literal
interpretation is the absolute and revealed truth, by which all other truths
must be judged."  I also believe that his definition of "apostasy" is
"straying from the teachings of God."  Thus, since accepting the principle
of inerrancy logically leads to the conclusion that the Bible reflects exactly
the teachings of God, Rex's conclusion that "inerrancy inevitably leads to
apostasy" is logically sound.

Those who follow the doctorine of errancy (referred to henceforth as E's,
whereas those who follow the doctorine of inerrancy will be referred to as I's)
take a different view.  Since E's hold that the Bible does not reflect 
perfectly the teachings of God, one can therefore NOT follow a given doctorine
set forth in the Bible and not apostasize, provided that doctorine can be
shown to be out-of-line with God's teachings, as understood by that person.
In fact, from an E's point of view, inerrancy can inevitably lead to apostasy,
since some of the teachings of the Bible may run contrary to the will of God.
For example, suppose that a particular E holds that the teachings on
homosexuality are in error, and that gays are furthermore entitled to the same
status as heterosexuals.  Thus, to practice some of the discriminatory practices
ces
as set forth in the Bible, as an I would be required to do, would violate the
dignity of the gay in question, and hence be contrary to God's will.
Consequently, from the E's point of view, the I will have apostasized.

The point to all of this is that one cannot conclude whether a belief in
errancy or inerrancy will automatically and inevitably bring about apostasy
unless one can demonstrate which doctorine is "true" WITHOUT using apostasy
as a pillar for that demonstration.  Another possible path would be to
change the definition of apostasy, but then one must be prepared to defend
that definition as a good one.

===============================================================================
Tom Ault                                                    tomault@cs.cmu.edu
Department of Robotics
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

	The pessimist will say the glass is half-empty
	The optimist will say the glass is half-full
	George Carlin will say the glass is too big
	The cynic will recline and reply, "This is some sort of trick question,
		isn't it?"
	And I say I'm thirsty, so the question will soon be moot.