irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Josh Smith) (07/24/90)
I've been looking at Christianity for a while now, and have begun to see some of its appeal; however, I simply cannot accept the idea that the Bible is 100% true as an a priori assertion (i.e. the Bible is accurate simply based on the fact that it is the Bible, not based on any analysis of what it actually says). Can anyone point me towards any Christian sects that explicitly do NOT support Biblical infallibility? I suspect that there may not be any, but if there are, I'd be interested in checking them out. Thanks for your time... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Reality: Josh Smith | Josh Smith '92 | | Internet: irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu | Swarthmore College | | BITNet: JBS92@SWARTHMR.BITNET | 500 College Ave. | | #include <witty.quote> | Swarthmore, PA 19081-1397 | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Most of the "mainline" denominations accept Biblical criticism, which means they reject Biblical inerrancy. This includes the United Methodists, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, etc. The American Baptists, Episcopaleans, one of the Lutheran groups (ELC?), and others also tend to be relatively "liberal", but I don't know their official positions on this subject. Of course being at Swarthmore you surely have run into the Quakers. They do not accept inerrancy. This issue complicated because there are often differences between leaders and the people in the pews. It's pretty common for seminaries to teach views of the Bible that reject inerrancy, and for pastors and other leaders to accept them, while the average church member in the denomination believes in inerrancy or something very close. There were a number of big battles earlier in the Century that resulted in denominations splitting. However the fact that "liberals" were left in control of the seminaries didn't mean that all the people who believe in inerrancy left. Once the battles over institutional control were over, the issue sort of vanished under the carpet. To bring the people and their leaders into agreement would involve a massive educational campaign. Which direction the education would go is of course an open question. It may be that if leaders were more open about their beliefs, there would be a revolt in the pews. This may be one reason the battle was never fought to a conclusion. But certainly in my church (Presbyterian (USA)), Sunday school material and other official publications are based on scholarship that rejects inerrancy. One reasonable test is whether a denomination ordains women. Strict believers in inerrancy generally do not accept that. In principle one could accept inerrancy, but still come up with arguments for ordination of women, based on differences in the social environment now and in the 1st Cent. But I don't know anyone who believes in inerrancy and accepts such arguments. So in practice ordination of women is a fairly good quick test. (However this test has one drastic failure. The largest group that does not accept inerrancy is the Catholic Church. They do not ordain women.) --clh]
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (08/06/90)
In article <Jul.24.04.42.12.1990.17387@athos.rutgers.edu>, irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Josh Smith) writes... > Can anyone point me towards any Christian sects that explicitly do NOT >support Biblical infallibility? I suspect that there may not be any, but if >there are, I'd be interested in checking them out. Thanks for your time... Charles Hedrick adds: >The largest group that does not accept >inerrancy is the Catholic Church. Just as a side note on this, it should be pointed out that Catholics do believe in an infallible Bible, but not in the same sense as fundamentalists; for Catholics, infallibility (in any application, whether it applies to the Bible, the Pope, or a council of Bishops) means that an incorrect doctrine cannot be taught. Thus, the Bible contains nothing that is doctrinally incorrect although some passages have meanings which may be taken to be strictly allegorical (e.g., Genesis 1-10; in this particular case, incidentally, no doctrine has been defined on whether that passage is to be taken literally or not, so Catholics are free to believe what they will on this). -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont Consulting and dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu production work. Free Estimates. dhosek@ymir.bitnet uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147
jow@pacbell.com (Jeff Westman) (08/06/90)
In article <Jul.24.04.42.12.1990.17387@athos.rutgers.edu> irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Josh Smith) writes: > > I've been looking at Christianity for a while now, and have begun to see >some of its appeal; however, I simply cannot accept the idea that the Bible is >100% true as an a priori assertion (i.e. the Bible is accurate simply based on >the fact that it is the Bible, not based on any analysis of what it actually >says). Josh, If someone told me the same thing, that the Bible is acuurate simply because it is the Bible, I would respond, "so what?". However, there is a book that I would challenge you to read. It's called 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict', written by Josh McDowell, a former critique of Christianity. In it, he argues from a historical context as well as from a cronological point-of-view for Christianity. I've read it, and it simply "re-inforces" my belief in a living God and His true word. As far as the 'inerrancy' part goes, all I can say is that science is getting closer-and-closer to agreeing with the Bible in a historical context. Archae- ological finds in the past 35 or 40 years have discovered different finds that are mentioned in the Bible, and even "lost cities" once thought to be fables that are also mentioned in the Bible. Again, these are found in McDowell's book. Paul, the apostle, in one of his letters said to be ready to give an answer (of your faith) to all who ask. I believe __not __ because it's the Bible ("priori assertion"), but because it has proven itself to be undenably the Word of God. -- Jeff [It's certainly reasonable to suggest that people look at Josh McDowell. It's a well-known and apparently attractive presentation of the conservative position. However those who find the inerrant position unacceptable -- and Josh Smith certainly seems to be leaning in that direction -- should know that there are other alternatives. A good treatment of the issues from a moderate liberal perspective is James Barr, "Holy Scripture: canon, authority, criticism", Westminster Press, 1983. It is possible to believe that the Bible is generally reliable without believing that it is supernaturally inerrant. --clh]
nlt@grad17.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) (08/12/90)
Our Revered Moderator writes: > In principle one could accept inerrancy, but still come up with > arguments for ordination of women, based on differences in the social > environment now and in the 1st Cent. But I don't know anyone who > believes in inerrancy and accepts such arguments. So in practice > ordination of women is a fairly good quick test. Evangelicals who accept both the inerrancy of the Bible and the ordination of women do exist, in more than merely token numbers. The name that first comes to my mind is Gilbert Bilezikian, a New Testament professor at Wheaton College; I can come up with a longer list of names if there is interest. (Wheaton requires its faculty to be inerrantists. It's my undergraduate school, so I keep up with the news there.) _Christianity_Today_, a conservative Evangelical periodical, also debates the issue from time to time, with inerrantists arguing both sides of the question. In scanning my copies of _Christianity_Today_ (chiefly to find the correct spelling of "Bilezikian" :-) ), I found in the April 9, 1990 issue (pp. 37-38) a statement titled "Men, Women, & Biblical Equality", arguing from Scripture that women and men should have equal status both in the family and in the church. The content of the statement and its list of 7 authors and over 100 endorsers is worth reading, if only to see the diversity within the Evangelical community. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "For Christ plays in ten thousand places, Nancy Tinkham Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his nlt@lear.cs.duke.edu To the Father through the features of men's faces." rutgers!mcnc!duke!nlt