[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: inerrancy vs. infallibility (no otr)



Peter asks J. Marie Hall to clarify the distinction between infallibility 
and inerrancy:

>From: "J. Marie Hall" <fionaeval at yahoo_com>
according to
>our expectations of linear time and space (which i
>believe to be part of our limits etc.) and if/then
>requirements regarding morality, the christian bible
>may contain some "errors."  even those making cases
>that it never violates the law of non-contradiction
>would probably still render it possible that some
>"facts" are vague or incomplete given the expectations
>of our human understanding and logic.
>
>however, i still believe it is the _perfect_ word of
>god--that it's infallible.  though it may not fit into
>my understanding, the holy spirit confirms it.

J. Marie, have I told you lately that I love you?  Never go away again!

See, here's the thing.  This whole "pick and choose" or "inerrancy vs. 
infallibility" debate has been intriguing, but I think Marie's point above 
and Peter and Fred's points are a tad one-sided.  You all are blaming human 
nature for our apparent inability to fully follow or grasp the Word.  To be 
sure, our inherent imperfection is a prime culprit in this, but it has an 
accomplice- language.  The capacty of words to convey a simple emotion, let 
alone a complex set of principles, is severely lacking at best.  Words are 
like the ocean, in a state of flux. What they mean changes from 
person(perspective) to person(perspective), langauge(tongue) to 
language(tongue), and era(time) to era(time), and the Bible has endured 
several of such changes.  The problem is further compounded when 
fundamentalists are adamant that the Holy scriptures NOT be revised to more 
clearly convey the modern meanings of the text, lest they be violated 
somehow.
     Is the word of God perfect?  Yes, but only as far as a mere book can 
be.  Think about it, the mind of GOD, the infinite, is being filtered and 
distilled thrugh finite langauge.  How can that not be problematic?
     This just affirms why God had to become a man, to my mind.  True, the 
very words of Christ were spoken in the limited language of men, but actions 
speak louder than any word, and a picture is worth 1,000 of 'em.  The mental 
image of the cross, which is the ultimate symbol of sacrificial love, 
contains absolutely everything a person, or humanity as a whole, needs to 
know within it which is vital to salvation.  (And the crucifiction is the 
book's climax, the very focal point of the text.)
     Anyway, we are imperfect too, not just our language.  Everything we so 
much as touch, let alone create, is flawed.  Government, religion, etc.  
(Which is why I see no point in debating catholicism with Don.)  Our own 
shortcomings are such that words are often lost on us, even when they are as 
clear and concise as they could possibly be.  Post to this very list often 
enough and your sentiments are certain to be misconstrued before too long.  
People can read what you write and project things into it based upon their 
own perjudices, thereby utterly missing your point.  It has happened to me 
more than once, as recently as last week, but I digress...
     Is the Holy Spirit able to guide us to an understanding of scripture 
despite the innate failings of mere human language/nature?  Yes, but I 
believe that those of us who are "in the spirit" truly enough to be given 
this guidance are fewer than most christians would like to think.  
Furthermore, I don't think all of us necessarily receive the gift of 
understanding, as the gifts of the spirit are distributed differently to 
each of the faithful.  This is why I am humble enough to know and accept 
that I need help in understanding.  I can't speak in tongues, which reminds 
me...
     The good ol' BORG managed to circumvent all this.  They embraced true 
perfection by sharing a collective consciousness, renderng the need for 
laguage as less than negligible.
However, the price they paid for their perfection was their precious 
free-will.  A loving God is no Borg Queen.  A loving God allows His children 
to embrace their imperections in the pursuit of individual free-will.  (And 
now, the conversation has come full circle.)  And since we do indeed possess 
free-will, so there are such resultant abberations as the "cafeteria 
christian", in addition to the "non-christian".  The BORG, in contrast,  
have no "cafeteria collectives" or individual distinctons.
     In conclusion to this mad ramble: Language, human fraility and 
individaulity all result in the various and individaul intrepretations of 
scripture.  The root cause is not necessarily limited to the fact that 
people naturally "pick and choose" via the application of "hermenutical 
screens".  It just is.

Depending on what your definition of "is" is.

;-),
Matt

n.p. Cry Cry Cry

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: