Metacrock

I find that most arguments on this board turn on the assumption by sketpics that all chrisians assume the verbal plenary model of inspiration. When he found out that I do not, Koy asserted that I had given up the right to call the Bible the word of God.

I also find that many atheists assume that any cliam a christian makes is auotmatically a supernatural claim. I'm going to inform you of my views on inspiration, not because it's so important that the world know what I think, but in the interest of future discussion, it would be helpful if you knew what you were dealing with.

I know you hate links, but its much easier this way.



http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...Models_rev.htm


Just so you know


1) I do believe the Bible is the "word of God" but you have to read the article to find out what I mean by that.

2) I do believe in the diety of Christ

3) Trinity

4_ atonement (but I have a different take on it than most christians)

5) Resurrection (but I don't necessarily see it as abig apological proof to be argued for)

6) I don't believe in satan (unless you count George W. and Elliot Abrams and Reagon)

7) I don't believe in Hell

8) I do believe in the unique sonship of Chrsit but:

9) Dont' assume that others faith's believers go to hell just becasue they are part of another faith

10) do think that God is working in all cultures and one mystical reality stands behind all relgions.


now you know


Please read the link as this is applicable to many topics often discused here: to bible contradictions, to the way atheists read certain passages, the HJ quesiton, and many other things.

Toto

If one eyewitness is not reliable, how do many unreliable eyewitnesses become reliable? Especially if they are unreliably reported to other unreliable humans. . .

Kosh

Since you've chosen the salad bar option (take what you like, leave what you don't), you can get a large drink for 1/2 price!

Tercel

Meta has highlighted an important problem: Many skeptics have only been exposed to one view of inspiration, and have the erroneous belief that such a view is the only (or at least the "main") Christian view. The following is a copy of a post I wrote not long ago in another forum, explaining the five main views of inspiration.

---------------------------------------

The inspiration of Scripture is something agreed upon by almost all Christians everywhere and everywhen.
“Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living...” -2 Tim 3:16
And few I think would disagree.

Yet over the years the meaning or, more precisely, the mode of “inspiration” has been interpreted differently by different groups and people. The various interpretations fall into five main categories, which it is worthwhile examining.

1) Perhaps the most easily recognisable category to most people who are familiar with modern Evangelical Protestantism is the view of “Verbal Plenary” inspiration. This view holds that, via the power of the Spirit, God worked through the writers of Scripture in such a way that every single word they wrote was of God. Thus the Scripture is considered “inspired” by God in such a way as to mean that God, acting through human surrogates, was Himself its Author.
When combined with the belief that God would not deliberately mislead people, this view naturally leads to Complete Inerrancy. (If God wrote the Bible and God would not write an error, then the Bible is Inerrant.)

2) A second, common deviation from the above view is “theological” inspiration. (I’m not actually sure if this view has a formal name, or whether it falls under the “Verbal Plenary” heading) This view considers that God was only interested in theology, not history or science when he wrote the Scripture. Thus, this view accepts that the Scripture may be errant and uninspired on matters of factual detail (the results of human authors with limited knowledge writing things that God didn’t care to correct), but asserts that it is inspired in all statements on theological matters. Holders of this view hence, generally consider that God’s inspiration was only active periodically when the human author wrote something of theological significance.
When combined with the belief that God would not deliberately mislead people, this view naturally leads to a belief in Theological Inerrancy. (That the Bible is inerrant on all statements regarding theology)

The next two views are two forms of what is typically known as “Qualitative Inspiration”.
3) This view would liken the process of inspiration to a child painting a picture of their teacher. The child themselves has done the painting, and it is thus the child’s own work. Yet the teacher has sometimes guided the child’s brush strokes, or suggested changes. The work is the child’s and yet the teacher has ensured that it is not too dissimilar a portrait. There are many errors, caused by the child, and yet the resemblance is there... when the child takes the painting home the parents can recognise that the painting is of the teacher, and yet the child can honestly claim the painting as their own.

4) This view asserts that God was active sometimes, but not others. Either the free will of the writers occasionally blocked God’s influence, or God didn’t care to use that influence (in a similar way to view 2 this holds that God didn’t want to use his influence all the time, but where view 2 states positively that what God did care about was theology this view doesn’t claim to know what God did decide to influence). Some proponents of this view would say: at some points the writers were fully open to God and allowing him to work through them; But that at other points the writers decided to go their own way, subconsciously rejecting what God was inspiring for the sake of writing their own thoughts, opinions or teachings. Others would say that sometimes God decided to influence what was being written and other times God did not care to influence it (but we can’t say for sure what he did and didn’t choose to influence). Many supports of this view would claim both parts of this view are true.

5) This view, known as “Natural Inspiration”, asserts that the writers saw the actions of God and gained inspiration from it. This view would liken the process to the way a painter is said to be inspired by a landscape, or a poet inspired by a sunset. The writers of Scripture, it is suggested, were inspired by their experiences of God.

Those five categories, I think, cover most of the various opinions on inspiration. The categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive: view 5 for example could be held concurrently with any of the other views; And views 3 and 4 are naturally compatible. Typically, the strong form of view 5 is mutually exclusive, with the adherent asserting that God did nothing at all directly with regard to inspiring the Scriptures.

Typically, conservative Protestants fall into the first or second categories, conservative Catholics into categories 2-4, and liberals into categories 3-5.
The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy for example would clearly fall into category 1, while the Vatican II Roman Catholic statements seem to be a form of Qualitative Inspiration, falling somewhere in categories 3-4 ("...the books of scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.").


The standard criticism of views 1 and 2 is: “Where is Free Will in all of this?”. While most supporters of these two views would be quick to assert that “God did it in such a way that it didn’t override their free wills”, this isn’t exactly convincing. It’s nice these people do value free will, but tacking “in such a way that it makes sense” onto “a square circle” doesn’t make it make sense. Proponents of view 4 would allege that they take a far more realistic view than supporters of the first two positions on this issue. It certainly seems clear that view 4 is indeed free from this potential criticism and that this is the only major difference between it and view 1 or 2. It is hard to say whether view 3 is open to this criticism or not, but certainly view 5 is not.

In support of views 3-5 might also be quoted the following passages:
‘How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ – Jeremiah 8:8
‘Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds."’ – Jeremiah 14:14
Jeremiah accuses other prophets of lying, and the scribes of writing (not simply interpreting or following) the law falsely. Christ himself would later make a similar accusation that the teachers of his day treated their own teachings as being on par with God’s laws. An example perhaps is ‘the royal law’ -the command to love one’s neighbour- which appears in a great passage in Leviticus on morality (Lev 19:11-18) which culminates in that great teaching (vs 18), but which has been subsequently placed right alongside apparently pointless rules “Do not cross-breed domestic animals. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothes made of two kinds of material” (vs 19).

The typical view held by Inerrantists, that God would not be deliberately misleading in what he inspired is also questioned by some. Several verses are often quoted in support of such an argument:
John 12:40 says that “God has blinded their eyes... so that their eyes would not see, and their minds would not understand, and they would not turn to me, says God, for me to heal them.”
Mark 4:10-12 tells us that Jesus uses parables “so that they may look and look, yet not see; they may listen and listen yet not understand. For if they did, they would turn to God and he would forgive them.”

One form or part of view 4 might be found unpalatable by those who would take the opposite stand on the free-will issue. View 4, in some forms, asserts that the free-will of the writers can completely block God’s will, which would be open to criticism from those supporting the sovereignty of God’s will.

Many would find fault with a strong version of view 5 on the grounds that they believe God took some direct interest in the Bible above and beyond what he takes in general. This argument would be typically supported with a note that in 2 Tim 3:16 the word translated as inspiration by God, literally mean “God breathed” implying God had an active role rather than the passive one proposed by this view. Proponents of view 5 would typically poo-poo this as simply being the author of 2 Timothy’s own opinion, and not binding on them.

Supporters of view 3 would perhaps suggest that we can have some understanding of why God would have inspired Scripture, and that support for it can be found in verse following the famous 2 Tim 3:16:
“...so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.” – 2 Tim 3:17
They might point out that an inspiration to do good works that the writer suggests, is a good explanation for why God would want to be active in the inspiration process.

Alternatively, supporters of views 1 and 2 might argue that God’s reason for inspiring the Scriptures is so that people might come to salvation, and perhaps quote “[God] wants everyone to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) in support of such a position. Their opponents would likely reply that such a statement assumes that the Scripture is necessary for salvation (something they probably do not agree with) and would likely point out the number of people in the world that have not had access to the Scripture and argue that if an almighty God really wanted everyone to be saved them he would have made the Scripture available to everyone so that they could be saved.

Supporters of views 3, 4 and 5 would also attack views 1 and 2 on the grounds that they claim too much. They would argue that views 1 and 2 both make claims to the truth of what God wants and how he acts that are above and beyond the available evidence. The belief of 2 -that God wanted to inspire Scripture as regards theology- or the belief of 1 -that God wanted to inspire the entire Scripture- it would be argued: are unevidenced assertions.


To conclude, Christians have always agreed on the term “inspiration” to describe the Scripture, but have used the word in different ways to mean things that are effectively quite different, especially when their implications regarding Inerrancy or the lack of it are taken into consideration.

Toto

On the contrary, many skeptics have gone from one view to another in a vain attempt to make sense of it all, and finally decided that scriptures are not inspired at all.

Kosh

Toto is right on (as usual). Tercel, save generalizations like that for Sunday morning apologetics, 'cause that's the only place you can sell them. They're patently false.

Tercel

Er Kosh, and Toto,

I didn't say this applied to all atheists, only "many". Hence if it doesn't apply to you: don't whinge. Personally, in the years I have spent talking to atheists I have encountered many such atheists it does apply to. I have even had several quite confused at why I called myself a Christian when they discovered I did not subscribe to view #1: That was what they had understood was the definition of Christian.

Metacrock

Meta => Because in oral tradition socieites they had public checking of the oral trdition. They told them in communal settings with people who knew the testimony or were ther themselves to say "no you're telling it wrong."

atheists always argue at that that they wouldn't listen to someone correcting them. Probably they wouldn't listen to someone who said "Hey wait a minute, I was there, he didn't appear to us, I didn't see him." Becasue they would just think that such a one was just trying some personal ploy, especially years after it got going. But they probalby would allow for lesser corrections, like the order of sitings and stuff.


[HR]

example: say they are telling the Res account in the Matt community. Matt or whoever it was says "MM went to the tomb at first light, and she was accompanied by Joanna, Mary of Bethnay, and whoever (gives names).

Years latter whom ever is in charges tells the story to the new batch of converts, and says "some women went to the tomb at dawn." An older memeber who was there when Matt told it say "No your telling it wrong, you have to remember who went with her. It was Joanna, Mary of Benthany, and whomever. and it was 'at first light' not 'at dawn.' So that way they keep it exactly as they first heard it.

Metacrock

can I have iced tea? I love iced tea, it's a fine drink

Metacrock

Meta =>O yea? What board do they post on? Cause all I ever get around here is the assumption that I can't be a real christian casue I "don't believe the bible." So many have said that to me. I'v rarely if ever found even one who was hip to the theological differences.

I feel blessed if I find an atheist who even understands the difference in historical critical methods, and theology.