OT vs NT Inerrancy

[ConsequentAtheist]

For inerrantists: Are the OT and NT inerrant in the same way and to the same extent? Given, for example:

• The Global Flood
• The Exodus
• the Virgin Birth
• The Resurrection

is each defended with the same literalism?

 

[Tiassa]

Starting point: Fundamentalism

I can't give a specific answer, since I read the Bible intepretively--very heavily interpretively. But if we consider fundamentalists, the answer is yes. I don't know what that implies beyond the immediate question for you, but that's beside the point, I suppose.

The Assemblies of God fundamentalist points of faith are documented in a letter from a minister who notes of "fundamentalism":

"The term [fundamentalism] was not invented until 1920 when Curtis Lee Laws, conservative editor of the Baptist paper, The Watchman-Examiner, coined it to describe those ready 'to do battle royal for the Fundamentals'...In general such conservatives united in defense of several 'fundamental' doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, his bodily resurrection, the authenticty of the biblical miracles, and sometimes premillennialism. During the 1920s some combinations of these doctrines became known informally as 'the five points of fundamentalism." Eerdman's Handbook to Christianity in America, pp. 384 - 385.

The "several 'fundamental doctrines including" actually constitute the original five fundamentals of faith drawn up in 1910 by Presbyterians.

You'll have to sort through some plea to readers, but when you find the article on this page, you'll note:

Almost immediately, however, the list of enemies became narrower and the fundamentals less comprehensive. Defenders of the fundamentals of the faith began to organize outside the churches and within the denominations. The General Assembly of the northern Presbyterian Church in 1910 affirmed five essential doctrines regarded as under attack in the church: the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, Christ's bodily resurrection, and the historicity of the miracles. These were reaffirmed in 1916 and 1923, by which time they had come to be regarded as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity itself. On a parallel track, and in the tradition of Bible prophecy conferences since 1878, premillenarian Baptists and independents founded the World's Christian Fundamentals Association in 1919, with William B Riley as the prime mover. The premillennialists tended to replace the miracles with the resurrection and the second coming of Christ, or even premillenarian doctrine as the fifth fundamental. Another version put the deity of Christ in place of the virgin birth.

The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman - Examiner, but it seemed to pop up everywhere in the early 1920s as an obvious way to identify someone who believed and actively defended the fundamentals of the faith. The Baptist John Roach Straton called his newspaper The Fundamentalist in the 1920s. The Presbyterian scholar J Gresham Machen disliked the word, and only hesitantingly accepted it to described himself, because, he said, it sounded like a new religion and not the same historic Christianity that the church had always believed.

This is the fundamentalist history I am most familiar with, and it seems that we are, by that notion, to treat the Old and New Testaments with equal faith and "literalism".

As a side note, the term "Biblical inerrancy" or "scriptural inerrancy" is a better assertion to have this discussion on. It would be apropos the topic post to say that The Old and New Testaments are treated as equally inerrant according to fundamentalist Christianity.

Because there is no "literalism". Ten people can read the same sentence in the Bible and come up with ten different "literal" meanings. The difference is minor--inerrancy describes a potential state; literalism implies that we understand and have actualized that potential state.

But that's my two cents. People more inclined to the faith will give better, more useful answers.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, they are inerrant (I've just checked the dictionary..).

They are almost two different books. Both of them talk about the promises God has for us. In the first, God keeps us away from sinning. He gave us a Law so that we can strive to be like Him. The Law was made in His image. Basically, the Law prevented us from going to hell by keeping us from sinning. That's because there is a Natural law that atheists call: cause and consequence. God talks about this law whenever you see something like "you reap what you sow". Basically. if you do something bad, it will come back to you. If you do something good, it will also come back to you. The Jews were under the Law.

After Jesus, we are now above the Law. God's promises extended to everyone and whenever we sin we are already forgiven. We are still influenced by the Law, but we are not under it anymore.

It is like being under or above clouds. Imagine that when you sin, the sky is full of clouds and when you don't sin, the sky is clear. Now, in the old testament, as long as you didn't sin the sky would be blue, but when you would sin, there would be clouds and you would get wet with rain. With the New Testament, God has brought us to Him. We are in the sky (as the Bible says in Ephesians 2: 5-7, although the passage might not be talking about that), we are above the clouds. When we sin, we don't get wet anymore because of it.

In the first, we were childish (disobedient, immature, etc...), now we are childlike (obedient, more mature, etc...).

Well... to understand this better one might need to know the concept of forgiveness, the concept of Love and God's promises. And, of course, read the Bible.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Basically, the Law prevented us from going to hell by keeping us from sinning.

Where, in the Torah, does it say this?

Also, are you speaking of the Noahide Laws, the Ten Commandments, or the 613 Mitzvot of the Torah?

 

[TruthSeeker]

ConsequentAtheist,

Also, are you speaking of the Noahide Laws, the Ten Commandments, or the 613 Mitzvot of the Torah?

Ten Commandments... although it was Jesus that simplified it into "Love one another".

Where, in the Torah, does it say this?

Deuteronomy 28:1-2
"1 Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
2 All these blessings will come upon you and overtake you if you obey the LORD your God: "

He says that as long as we keep His commandments (summarized in "love one another":

Romans 13:9 and 10
"The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

...) we are blessed.

But if you don't keep them...

Deuteronomy 28:15
"15 But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: "

That DOESN'T mean He will put a curse on us, that only means that we will reap what we sow. He tells us what to sow:

1 John 3:11
"11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; "

Hosea 10:12
"12 Sow with a view to righteousness, Reap in accordance with kindness; Break up your fallow ground, For it is time to seek the LORD Until He comes to rain righteousness on you. "

2 Corinthians 9:6
"6 Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. "

Galatians 6:7-8
"7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. "

 

[Jaxom]

1) I don't see mention of damnation, hell, or eternal suffering there. I don't believe there's anything of the sort in the OT, that it's a NT device.

2) What about Commandment Number One? How does Jesus, being a separate entity, come into play here? I'll start with one verse, but there are many others...

Isaiah 43:10-12

43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
43:12
I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Which version of god are we supposed to believe? The first one, or the latter that modified the first one's laws?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Basically, the Law prevented us from going to hell by keeping us from sinning.

Where is hell addressed in the Torah? Why do you deprecate the Noahide Laws and the Mitvot?

You appear to claim OT inerrenacy only to treat it with ignorant contempt.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Jaxom,

Jesus and God are not separed.


ConsequentAtheist,

Where is hell addressed in the Torah? Why do you deprecate the Noahide Laws and the Mitvot?

Can you please quote from the Bible about those things?

 

[Tiassa]

Um ....

Can you please quote from the Bible about those things?

Nelson, I think that's the point. Or at least a really big part of it.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[New Life]

Originally posted by Jaxom
1) I don't see mention of damnation, hell, or eternal suffering there. I don't believe there's anything of the sort in the OT, that it's a NT device.

2) What about Commandment Number One? How does Jesus, being a separate entity, come into play here? I'll start with one verse, but there are many others...

Isaiah 43:10-12

43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
43:12
I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Which version of god are we supposed to believe? The first one, or the latter that modified the first one's laws?

what do you mean which version? those all say the same thing, that there is one god and that those who believe in him should be witnesses to that.

The first commandment is that you should love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul and all your mind and put no other God above Him. Christians contest that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all ONE, they are all a part of this one god, God is God, Jesus is God in the Flesh and the Holy Spirit is God in our hearts.

 

[Cris]

Newlife,

Christians contest that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all ONE, they are all a part of this one god, God is God, Jesus is God in the Flesh and the Holy Spirit is God in our hearts.

So are they three separate entities or they just different aspects of the same personality? If they can operate independently then they are three separate gods.

 

[Tiassa]

The crucifixion thread?

I'm reminded at present of Cris's old thread on Crucifixion a fraud?.

The issue of the Trinity has been sticky since Nicaea at least. Early in the church's history (e.g. Apostolic Fathers) various bishops and personages argued issues which still haunt us today. Clement of Rome appealed to the congregation to adhere to the bishop's instructions; nearly two-thousand years later, Kevin Smith puts out Dogma.

Ignatius of Antioch, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, pleads against Docetism:

But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of[effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But,[in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so m the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.

Now what strikes me about the crucifixion thread is a long textual citation I made from Karen Armstrong, part of which I will reproduce here:

But Athanasius had a less optimistic view of man's capcity for God. He saw humanity as inherently fragile: we had come from nothing and had fallen back into nothingness when we sinned. When he contemplated his creation, therefore, God

saw that all created nature, if left to its own principles, was in flux and subject to dissolution. To prevent this and to keep the universe from disintegrating back into nothing, he made all things by his very own eternal Logos and endowed the creation with being.

It was only by participating in God, through his Logos, that man could avoid annihilation because God alone was perfect Being. If the Logos himself were a vulnerable creature, he would not be able to save mankind from extinction. The Logos had been made flesh to give us life. He had descended into the mortal world of death and corruption in order to give us a share of God's impassibility and immortality. But this salvation would have been impossible if the Logos himself had been a frail creature who could himself lapse back into nothingness. Only he who had created the world could save it, and that meant that Christ, the Logos made flesh, must be of the same nature as the father. (Armstrong, Karen. A History of God. New York: Knopf, 1994)

The Trinity is a difficult thing for many Christians to reconcile, hence many merely accept the notion of the Trinity on blind faith without ever stopping to understand what it actually means or represents.

But it seems that:

- If the Trinity is 3 separate entities, there is obviously not "one supreme god"
- If the Trinity is 1 combined entity, then perhaps we ought to resurrect Cris' topic from square one, as the legitimacy of Christ's sacrifice is called into doubt.

two cents ...,
Tiassa

 

[TruthSeeker]

tiassa,

Nelson, I think that's the point. Or at least a really big part of it.

Well... I'm talking about the Bible and the Ten Commandments, not about the Torah and Noahide laws.

- If the Trinity is 1 combined entity, then perhaps we ought to resurrect Cris' topic from square one, as the legitimacy of Christ's sacrifice is called into doubt.

Really? Imagine if you would let your son or daughter suffer for more then 3 days like God did, in order to save us. Is that NOT a sacrifice!?!?!?


Cris,

So are they three separate entities or they just different aspects of the same personality? If they can operate independently then they are three separate gods.

In flesh, God expressed Himself in Christ. The Holy Spirit is the expression of His power. Love is the expression of His glory. God is still God. He doesn't express Himself in just one way. Only because He expresses Himself in many ways it doesn't mean He is more then one God.

 

[Jaxom]

So if Jesus was the manifestation of God in human form, then he didn't really suffer, and it wasn't really a sacrifice, was it? How can God suffer, being what he supposedly is?

You have even less argument of sacrifice if you portray God being Jesus than if Jesus was a separate being who was raised up afterward. Either way Jesus was not lost forever to God, but God as Jesus pretending to be a separate son, nothing was lost.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Jaxom,

So if Jesus was the manifestation of God in human form, then he didn't really suffer, and it wasn't really a sacrifice, was it? How can God suffer, being what he supposedly is?

God as an spiritual being doesn't suffer, but God as a physical being suffers. He also could be tempted. Why do you think Satan tried to tempt Him in the desert, if He couldn't be tempted? He can be tempted because sins are the fruits of the flesh:

Galatians 5:19-23
"19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. "

Sins are the temptations of the flesh and death is the result of the sins. Jesus came and lived those temptaions in the same way we do. He also limited Himself and had to study all the scriptures. Yes, it was a pretty big sacrifice. Also:

John 15:12-13
"12 This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. "

And He layed down His life for all of us. Understand that He didn't need to do that. He could come and have a party... but noooo... He worked for 30 years, ministered for 3 and for 3 days He went to hell and He did all this for us. Is that enough for sacrifice?

 

[Tiassa]

Sacrifice?

Really? Imagine if you would let your son or daughter suffer for more then 3 days like God did, in order to save us. Is that NOT a sacrifice!?!?!?

Don't look so surprised. Read the topic. Especially before it degrades into a yelling match between me and Blonde Cupid, who also looked surprised.

But there is evidence that "The Son" portion of the Trinity had knowledge of his station; Jack Blanco's "Clear Word" Bible paraphrase makes that point, which I had doubted in prior assertions from other Sciforums members because it serves so many undermining points. But the Gospels are clear that Jesus was aware of his identity, nature, and duty (Luke 3.21-22). From Jesus' perspective, the sacrifice is merely ritual and demonstrative--he knows he will be raised, he knows he will triumph. From the perspective of "The Father", the sacrifice is part of the plan, and it is known that in sacrificing His Son, the Son will come home. It's hardly the same as you or I watching our child be tortured.

God knew what He was doing from before Creation. He knew that He would be made flesh in The Son, and He knew that The Son would be "sacrificed", take a sojourn in the underworld, and then make his way home.

I'm not sure God would weep over that "sacrifice" any more than He would over the animals burnt at the Temple for their pleasing odor.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Cris]

truthseeker,

And adding to what tiassa said -

And He layed down His life for all of us. Understand that He didn't need to do that. He could come and have a party... but noooo... He worked for 30 years, ministered for 3 and for 3 days He went to hell and He did all this for us. Is that enough for sacrifice?

There can be no sacrifice if nothing is lost or given up. If he gave up his life not knowing if he would ever come back then that might have some meaning, but he was omniscient and immortal so he knew exactly the outcome. This is like saying you struggled hard at a difficult exam and passed but you knew the answers in advance. Again with omniscience he would have just been following a script, and his actions would be as meaningful as any soap opera.

If Jesus was just another personality of God and if God is immortal and omniscient, then absolutely nothing was given up, lost, or sacrificed, and they/he would have completely known that.

Of course if he had instructed Adam and Eve that taking from the wrong tree was a bad thing rather than deceiving them then mankind wouldn't have been condemned to death in the first place making the entire farce of a savior utterly unnecessary. You realize of course they couldn't know that disobeying God was bad because at that time they hadn't eaten from the tree that gave the knowledge of good and evil. They were tricked and the whole consequent Jesus myth is the completion of a foolish and impossible paradox.

 

[TruthSeeker]

tiassa,

But there is evidence that "The Son" portion of the Trinity had knowledge of his station; Jack Blanco's "Clear Word" Bible paraphrase makes that point, which I had doubted in prior assertions from other Sciforums members because it serves so many undermining points. But the Gospels are clear that Jesus was aware of his identity, nature, and duty (Luke 3.21-22). From Jesus' perspective, the sacrifice is merely ritual and demonstrative--he knows he will be raised, he knows he will triumph. From the perspective of "The Father", the sacrifice is part of the plan, and it is known that in sacrificing His Son, the Son will come home. It's hardly the same as you or I watching our child be tortured.

Even if you knew your child wouldn't die, wouldn't it be a sacrifice to let him/her be tortured?

I'm not sure God would weep over that "sacrifice" any more than He would over the animals burnt at the Temple for their pleasing odor.

They Love each other. It must have been a pretty big sacrifice to see Him suffering.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

There can be no sacrifice if nothing is lost or given up. If he gave up his life not knowing if he would ever come back then that might have some meaning, but he was omniscient and immortal so he knew exactly the outcome. This is like saying you struggled hard at a difficult exam and passed but you knew the answers in advance. Again with omniscience he would have just been following a script, and his actions would be as meaningful as any soap opera.

God's omniscience is limited by our free will, in our own choice. Jesus had a free will in the garden:

Matthew 26:36-46
"36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to His disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed.
38 Then He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me."
39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."
40 And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour?
41 "Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
42 He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done."
43 Again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy.
44 And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more.
45 Then He came to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.
46 "Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!"

This clearly shows that Jesus had the choice of not following God's will. He was almost sinning there. I've passed through moments when I knew that I shouldn't sin and I had to keep control. It is NOT easy and in this situation it was DEFINETLY way harder. This means that Jesus also had the choice of not believing He would be raised from the dead, which makes it a really great sacrifice. The possibility of His loss wasn't something easy to stand.

 

[Tiassa]

Degrees of suffering?

Even if you knew your child wouldn't die, wouldn't it be a sacrifice to let him/her be tortured?

Exactly the docetic problem overlooked by Athanasius. What happens next is that because of Jesus' divinity, his physical suffering was lessened, thus alleviating the condition of torture. You see the slippery slope? The problem is that the Trinity was invented not independently from Scripture, but without regard to the limitations set by Scripture.

There is also the outside possibility that the cheery face of Christianity is inappropriate, and the stoics or miserable apocalyptics have it right. An outside possibility. Slim chance. I don't worry about it, actually.

The suffering of a frail human was a distasteful idea for Athanasius, who pitched a Savior of stronger stuff. Admittedly, he was banished for various offenses later in his career, but he won out that day. He sold his wash job at Nicaea and forever afflicted the faith with a new contradiction.

They Love each other. It must have been a pretty big sacrifice to see Him suffering.

See above.

:m:,
Tiassa