Inerrancy vs. Liberalism

Neither of those sound particularly appealing. My point in this exercise of course, is to point out the flaw in trying to build a faith based upon human knowledge, even a scientific one. Our science isn’t “truth” per se, but our best approximation of it, an asymptote, if you will. It works within our paradigms, but is always subject to revision as new evidence arises. But faith in Christ is a gift, not the result of rationalizations, and not subject to revision.

The irony, of course, is that our interpretation of our faith, i.e. theology, is yet another form of human knowledge. While God’s truth is truth, not an approximation, our way of understanding it is. So, you see, it becomes impossible for me to believe you when you say that science can show HOW the bible is correct. The bible is correct because of the veracity of God, and we know this through our faith, not our reason (interpretation). Our reason is supplemental to our faith, is FOUNDED on our faith, on the rock of Christ, the risen God-man, not on the shifting sands of scientific, theologic, or any other form of human knowledge.

BIO,..... OLD FRIEND,....... OLD BUDDY
  WE ALREADY BELIEVE IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE…. HEAVEN!

Where is the dilemma?
 
Showing you “how” is a big job.
For starters , what did you imagine in your little minds eye for universe “without form and void”/

Many people imagine a dark earth covered with water, a sort of “mud ball earth”.
But there is a flaw in that picture.
It HAS FORM!    [It has the form of a mud ball.]

A better picture of something ‘without form” is the Planck epoch and the Grand Unified Epoch.

  There even the atoms were not formed.
Even the quarks were not formed.
  Photons of light were not formed. [Until God formed them at the start of the electroweak epoch]

IT IS A MUCH BETTER ACTUALIZED “UNIVERSE WITHOUT FORM” THAN THE MUD BALL.

When I learned these facts from cosmology MY FAITH SOARED.

Conrad, a parallel universe you say? How interesting, hadn’t quite thought of it that way before.

And please don’t patronize me, old buddy, it really doesn’t become you =).

Of course, however you wish to interpret scripture is entirely your prerogative, but I note you ignored my point altogether, which I thought quite rude. I’ll forgive you though, and point out that the particular details of my thought-experiment were irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you have no certainty of what tomorrow might bring. The future is God’s, and we cannot see it. If your scientific paradigm is one day overthrown, which, again I remind you, you can never know, then the basis for your “soaring” faith will come crashing down with a resounding din.

I merely prefer to rest my faith on something a bit more, shall we say, sturdy.

PS - That’s crazy, those ARE interesting ways of modeling a good metaphor for what an actualized universe without form might be like. Thanks!

And Bio ,....“In the beginning” does NOT apply to the beginning of God.”

We know He has no beginning.

It means the beginning of TIME ....[for this space-time continuum] and the beginning of our universe.

The Bible makes that perfectly clear.

I do not anticipate ANY scientific discovery shaking my faith.

Of course not. Such is the fervor of zealous faith.

Not that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that. I agree with you in fact, I don’t anticipate any scientific discovery shaking my faith either.

The difference between us, I think, is that science can’t shake my faith, because it plays no role in the formation of my faith. On the other hand, science can’t shake your faith, because you believe that your current scientific paradigm is the only correct one, and can’t imagine it ever being overthrown.

Forgive me for overstepping, but that sounds a bit too much like hubris to me. I prefer a humble faith well over a brazen one.

I’m afraid we won’t find resolution. Which only reiterates my point, we two can’t even agree on how to interpret the Bible, and what inerrancy even means. How then can we find a balance of any sort?

Bio,.... you give me such GREAT OPENINGS!
 
[Can I hire you as a “straight man”]

  “PS - That’s crazy, those ARE interesting ways of modeling a good metaphor for what an actualized universe without form might be like. Thanks!”
 

  “MUD BALL EARTH” IS A TERRIBLE METAPHOR!
It has confused and misled generations of seekers-after-truth.

  WE NEED TO GET RID OF IT!
First of all it is contradictory in that it conjures a vision of a WELL FORMED object.
Sloppy and dirty and cold perhaps but definitely well formed.
  But earth is definitely in that picture.

SECOND IT SCRAMBLES THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
So the mud ball PRECEDES THE LIGHT ?  and yet the sky which is created on Day two.
 
And thirdly it puts believers squarely into opposition with science.
HAVEN’T WE BEEN LED DOWN THAT SORRY ROAD ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE EVOLUTION SAGA?

Scientists tell us that heavy elements in earth were not made in the Big Bang.
They were made through nucleosynthesis in massive stars and supernova.
The material for making earth [with plate tectonics] was not available until “sky” was produced on Day two.
We had to await a supernova collapse to have the thorium for a tectonic earth.
Earth came later.

sorry, I wasn’t clear, I was actually admiring your model based on Planck’s Epoch and the Grand Unified Epoch. My bad =P

Bio
Oh well!
My misunderstanding still gave me an opportunity for my speech [or rant or whatever you call it.]

NOW SEE!

“God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform’”

That’s all the preaching I have time for today.
See you tomorrow.

Joel H, you said:-

“The ‘inerrancy’ vs. the ‘liberal/low’ view of scripture is a spectrum rather than a choice.”

“‘Inerrancy’ implies that the scripture itself is revelatory – from God, but it does not imply, and should not imply, that the person interpreting it is inerrant…The inerrancy grows with our interpretation because the superintendant understanding of [the] Spirit grows with our understanding of how God operates in other fields…as well as through scripture.”

And I thought those comments are great.  So I wrote them down.

I know I can get so worked-up about whether I’m thinking the ‘right’ things that I have forgotten that it is only by the gracious opening of my eyes by God’s Spirit that I could ever know the truth.  Shocking really.  Thanks for the reminders.

How convenient. So are you going to keep devaluing the scriptures until you can fully reconcile yourselves with the reality of it’s being invalid? When will you start working on subsuming god and the creator to appease those you really oppose? Pathetic.

Biophilos—-

Thanks for articulating your thoughts, which seem to be more or less my own.  And without naming names, you’ll find here on BioLogos (which I assume you are relatively new to) that there are certain people who like to dominate the discussions and are not really worth trying to engage with.  Sad but true.

Conrad—There’s this key called “Caps Lock”.  Turn it off.

Because nothing says “kook rant” like ALL CAPS SPRINKLED THROUGH YOUR POSTING, ENDING IN EXCLAMATION POINT! or RHETORICAL QUESTION MARK?.

Hi JKnott,

I think I’ve realized that now. I’ve been an active reader but not much of a participant before on BioLogos (I commented once or twice before as A. A. Lyrae) so I had some guess about which people I should’ve avoided. Still I found the discussion a useful exercise in helping to articulate my thoughts. I hope to participate more often!

Headless Unicorn Guy

I am taking your advice and giving attention to decorum, so that I can have maximum effectiveness.

  I think caps are the equivalent of shouting.
I only intend to use them when I am saying something so important,...... that I would be raising my voice to you,... if we were talking in my living room.

But when I deal with THIS material ,....I find that it is ,......ALL SO IMPORTANT ....  THAT IN A FACE-TO-FACE ENCOUNTER,.... I WOULD NOT ONLY RAISE MY VOICE,.......I WOULD PROBABLY POKE YOU IN THE CHEST WITH MY FOREFINGER…..... AND POSSIBLY SIEZE YOUR COLLAR AND PUSH YOU INTO A CORNER TO MAKE YOU LISTEN TO ME.

[But I would do this in a respectful way.]

  None the less your advice is spot on.
Caps are the equivalent of shouting.
I am a shouter.
  But thank you for the well meant advice.

Wow! This blog is a real trip! The confusion regarding the simple doctrine of biblical inerrancy in the church is far deeper and more widespread than I imagined! Either you believe that the Bible is without error regarding matters spiritual AND scientific AND historical, or you do not. Simple. A child can grasp it. While the former does not guarantee you safe passage into heaven, the latter guarantees you hell, if you do not repent of it. If you do not start with absolute inerrancy, it is no use for you to try to interpret Scripture. Might as well just go to a ballgame or to a movie. It seems that Daniel Fuller’s “modified” version of inerrancy has done more damage than I thought. The Bible does NOT need cosmology or any other ology as a handmaiden. It is axiomatic to all knowledge. (Ps. 36:9) Long before anyone discovered other galaxies the psalmists and prophets were proclaiming that “God stretched out the heavens.” Those who teach these versions of inerrancy, are trafficking through what could be the most undiscerning generation of Christians since the Protestant Reformation, and they fine well know it.  Is this harsh? or hateful? How sad that such a solid ground warning would be considered so.

If inerrancy is as simple as that, you’d have to say John Calvin was a liberal, because he taught that certain passages of Scriptures were written to accommodate to the minds of simple men (specifically, for example, the astronomical features of Genesis 1). He based his opinion on the findings of the new astronomy.

I don’t care if the whole bible was written for simple men to understand, that does NOT change the true meaning of inerrancy. No mistakes at all! All scripture is God breathed therefore it is without error. They communicate in different modes (IE poetry, history,epistles, metaphoric language etc.) , but still have NO MISTAKES. Whether the scriptures teach expressly or by necessary consequence it does not diminish their total, ironclad inerrancy.