Clouseau

People had been taught for centuries that they had to be justified by faith and works- going to confession and Mass, doing penance, going on pilgrimages, fighting in a crusade- and did not know anything about justification by faith, which necessarily excludes justification by works- and Luther had to explain that, as if to children, with the phrase 'faith alone'.

spin

Swoosh, what a deviation!

When Doug Shaver said "I don't understand", he was specific in his lack of understanding, ie he didn't understand which of these

1. Luther was a Christian
2. Luther believed in justification by faith alone

'is negated by the assertion "Luther was writing in the face of Roman Catholic heretical teaching"'. Your response had nothing to do with clarifying his quandary. Would you care to try again?

Doug Shaver

What Spin said.

Clouseau

Of course.

Sven

hits: 264 000
Have fun in sorting these out. Especially since none of these will lead Clouseau to admit an error.

Johnny Skeptic

I am not aware of any credible evidence that today's copies accurately represent the originals. How could anyone know that since no one knows what the originals said? In addition, what would have prevented people from changing parts of the originals? The book of Revelation warns against tampering with the texts. If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings.

Is it your position that God is obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts?

May I ask what good supposedly inerrant texts were to the hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it? The spreading of the Gospel message is obviously not one of God's top priorities.

Clouseau

The large number of surviving manuscripts that substantially agree is an indication of that.

No-one can know it- but there are minor details that we know must be incorrect, due to scribal error or the like. Many readers and students believe that the texts apart from these errors are intact, because they go to make a coherent overall message. Modern linguistic and other research tends to elucidate and confirm rather than the reverse.

People did just that, and by careful comparison we can tell where and why they did it. Or we think we can!

It warns against teaching other than what is in Revelation. It's nothing to do with textual tampering.

It is believed that those who die without hearing or reading the gospel will be given the choice of accepting rejecting Jesus after death. Iow, everyone gets the same chance, the same choice.

Johnny Skeptic

Inerrancy is what I am mainly interested in. I do not see how a careful comparison of copies of Old Testament documents can make a good case that the Bible is inerrant.

Regarding careful comparisons, that will not do as far as inerrancy is concerned. Even one error would discredit inerrancy. There is no way for anyone to reasonably prove that there is not even one lie, interpolation, or innocent but inaccurate revelation in the Bible. I assume that most of the supernatural claims in the Bible were the result of innocent but inaccurate revelations, not lies. Today, many Charismatics have innocent but inaccurate revelations.

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

So everyone gets saved, the Wormboy proxy...

Theists then are nothing but wind bags who like to hear [and see, as in the 'net] their thoughts being expressed.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;4506719] For what reason? Faith is dependent on the hearing of the gospel, and the changes in lives that follow from its acceptance. There is no-one who can prove anything at all in the Bible, so inerrancy is somewhat superfluous to requirements. Inerrancy is not an a priori assumption. It is the result of much experience, and is used for 'internal purposes' only.

It is evidence that copies accurately represent the originals, which is what you asked about.

True. The onus seems to be on those who would prove that there is mendacity or inaccuracy in the Bible.

Why that assumption?

I don't think that many 'charismatics' are either charismatic or innocent, but that's another issue.