Sentences with phrase «about inerrancy»

Here is what I was taught about the Inerrancy of Scripture.

Excellent points about inerrancy.

I have no answers about the inerrancy of Scripture, or inspiration of it.

A thought that arose as I read your comment: The debates over the inerrancy of the Bible — are they not just camouflaged debates about the inerrancy of my or your or whoever's interpretation?

Now that I have summarized what I was taught in Bible College and Seminary about the inerrancy of Scripture (Inerrancy 1, Inerrancy 2, Inerrancy 3, Inerrancy 4), let me turn to asking the questions about inerrancy that I had neither the time nor the courage to ask while I was in seminary.

«I had questions about inerrancy,» «I saw that truth is in many ways relative,» «I support the civil rights of gays and lesbians,» «I think «the market» has become an idol» and so on.

As a matter of fact, I am now studying about the inerrancy of the OT, because there are passages that don't go along with Jesus either — and that he rebukes.

Over the next several posts, I will summarize what I was taught in Bible college and Seminary about this doctrine, and then, just as we did with inspiration, we will look at some of «the hard questions» about inerrancy which are often avoided or ignored in most Bible Colleges, Seminaries, and churches.

The good thing is that I had already been somewhat primed for this in my series on Bibliology where I questioned and challenged everything I had been taught about Inerrancy and Inspiration.

Great questions about inerrancy.

But if we can stop arguing about inerrancy, we can return instead to what has true value, which is actually discussing the biblical text itself.

When it comes time to talk about his beliefs about the Bible the grad student is surprised to hear himself say, «I used to have doubts about inerrancy, but since coming to seminary I have been able to overcome it.»

Not exact matches

The grad student says a few things about the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he knows that this pastor wants to hear the word «inerrancy.»

In class, we had discussions about election and predestination, open theism, inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, millennialism, tribulationalism, dispensationalism, infra -, supra -, and sublapsarianism and many other «very important» subjects that you discuss every day over dinner.

But this is not what the doctrine of inerrancy is about.

Though people here have made some very good points about the supremacy of love and being «living epistles», I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the apologetics of inerrancy entirely.

Giving up on inerrancy is at first glance a solution, but in the end it raises much larger questions about the gospel itself.

For years I struggled with doubts about my faith, and through the emerging church movement, I found people who were asking the very same questions - about religious pluralism, the Problem of Evil, inerrancy, the notion of absolute truth, etc..

During the debate over «biblical inerrancy» that raged among evangelicalism for several years in the late 1970s, I remember someone observing that Harold Lindsell's 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible, which pretty much got that debate going, was more a theory of institutional change than it was about theology as such.

There are three keys to the stuff I've been posting at GraceGround: - Except for the one on inerrancy, all the posts are really about loving our neighbors.

Well, the subtitle gives a hint: The Human Faces of God is about «What Scripture reveals when God gets it wrong (and why inerrancy tries to hide it).»

Evangelicals have not always noted the complexity of the hermeneutical task; indeed, sometimes they have let themselves speak as if everything immediately becomes plain and obvious for believers in biblical inerrancy, to such an extent that uncertainties about interpretation never arise for them.

Interesting stuff, was heavy into deliverance ministry, but now after leaving the religious churched mentality, I'm not sure there is even a person called satan... we are easily our worst enemy... questions about hell, inerrancy, etc... also too much of «us and them» mentality.

Stephen Davis's book The Debate About the Bible is a response to Lindsell's attack and seeks to answer the question, «Must a person believe in inerrancy to be an evangelical?»

Pinnock's flexible use of the word «inerrancy» causes him to criticize certain evangelicals like Lindsell for an «overbelief about the Bible» which seeks to protect it from its own humanity.42 It compels him to criticize the position of irenic inerrantists like Daniel Fuller, who, according to Pinnock, operate in their judgment of Scripture's infallibility according to an a priori standard derived inductively from doctrinal verses (2 Tim.

The largest truth we can discover about the Fundamentalist war cry of «biblical inerrancy» is that it has almost nothing to do with anyone's actual experience of reading the Bible.

Yes, been having similar conversations about what some view as the inerrancy of the bible, literally «the word of God».

Words like «inerrancy» and «authority» and «inspiration» will drop out of use, and we will instead begin to hear more about «redemption» and «reconciliation.»

The one complaint I have of the book is that it did not really contain any information about Wright's view on inerrancy.

A few years ago, in a moment of lonely desperation, I googled something having to do with «Christians against biblical inerrancy» (for some reason you were on the first or second page of search results...) because I was trying to find out if there was anyone else who was thinking about the Scriptures in a different way from what I had encountered.

I think that maybe what I have presented is a bit of a stretch, but if I am going to maintain some bit of sense of the inerrancy of this text, I can see no other way of reading about the drowning of the Egyptian army in Exodus 14 through the lens of Jesus Christ dying on the cross for His enemies.

Moreover, by failing to ground their assertions about scripture in a logically prior doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the narrative theologians undermine their purported desire to uphold the unity and authority of scripture.

I think you are right about the way you read inerrancy.

There should probably also be a statement about the authority of Scripture (even if we didn't necessarily all agree on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture).

Having said that, I will show in the next few posts that the process and standards of Canonization undermines nearly everything else we evangelical Christians believe about the Bible, and so we must either change our view on some of these other things (such an inspiration and inerrancy), or we must decide that the process of Canonization was wrong.

I began to doubt what I'd been told about the Bible's exclusive authority, inerrancy, perspicuity, and internal consistency.

I've been called a socialist and a baby - killer for voting for Barack Obama, an enemy of the Church for asking questions about biblical inerrancy, a Buddhist for reading Thich Nhat Hahn, and a raging liberal for supporting basic civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Having engaged in far too many seemingly endless and usually fruitless discussions about the word «inerrancy,» I am both convicted and encouraged by McKnight's reminder here that «having the right view [of the Bible] isn't the point of the Bible... We must begin an entirely new conversation that gets us beyond the right view of the Bible to one that seeks to answer this question, «What is our relationship to the God of the Bible?»

See David, this is what I am talking about: Elizabeth... Certainly there is a place for doubt inasmuch as we are fallible beings, but not as it pertains to the inerrancy and truth of Scripture.

As for the current intra-evangelical debate about Scripture, I will say only that inerrancy with the needed footnotes weighs in about the same as naked infallibility,» or so it seems to me.

You wrote: «if you have ever had concerns about «going down the slippery slope» by giving up the belief in the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture, this book is an excellent source to see how someone can abandon these and still hold on to their faith.»

I struggled with questions about religious pluralism, the destiny of the un-evangelized, the Problem of Evil, the inerrancy of the Bible, and much more.

My experiences with raising questions about religious pluralism, heaven and hell, biblical inerrancy, and the creation account have not been pleasant ones to say the least.

Again, Jeremy's words: ««if you have ever had concerns about «going down the slippery slope» by giving up the belief in the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture, this book is an excellent source to see how someone can abandon these and still hold on to their faith.

But regardless of what people think about the book of Job, even those who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture believe that Job contains some incorrect ideas about God.