Sentences with phrase «sin.the inerrancy»

Mainline Protestants (Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and the like) and evangelical / fundamentalist Protestants (an umbrella group of conservative churches including the Pentecostal, Baptist, Anabaptist, and Reformed traditions) not only belong to distinctly different kinds of churches, but they generally hold distinctly different views on such matters as theological orthodoxy and the inerrancy of the Bible, upon which conservative Christians are predictably conservative.

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.»

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.»

You, however, run around declaring that YOUR understanding of faith is the ONLY correct one (even though the majority of the Christian faith do not even agree with you on inerrancy) and that those who challenge your offensive grandstanding are apostate and / or damning.

There are MANY (snuck in another all caps... grin) great references which totally destroy the «answer» men's claims of biblical inerrancy, but I'll just give you one for now.

Evolution merely disproves Biblical Inerrancy and Young Earth Creationism.

For at least a decade and a half before the appointment of Tietjen to the presidency of Concordia Seminary, some of its faculty had begun to turn away from such understandings — though without claiming that this turn meant giving up biblical inerrancy.

Other Lutherans understand infallibility and inerrancy to refer to issues essential to the Gospel, and they would not insist, as would Missourians, that skepticism concerning, say, the historicity of Adam and Eve undermines scriptural authority.

Insistence on literal inerrancy, whatever its uses in arresting doctrinal laxity, leaves the LCMS vulnerable to charges of biblicist obscurantism.

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

a deist does not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.

That said, you would be correct that the belief in Scriptural inerrancy has grown precipitously since the mid-1900s, and has had an increasingly dangerous effect on politics, education, and other areas.

«Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages — the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity — are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.»

So I either have to give up on inerrancy, OR I have to try to read the text in a different way.

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.

The Objection That Inerrancy Is Based on Non-Existent Originals Some object to inerrancy because it affirms that only the original text is inerrant (there being admitted errors in the copies), and the originals are not extant.

Note: inerrancy as far as every «a, an, and the» being flawless and «God dictated» is useless.

I believe in inerrancy.

On this, there is no agreement, but we use «inerrancy» to discredit opponents.

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

Since inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts which no longer exist, what's the point?

Jeremy, you ended up where my thinking always goes to in discussions of inerrancy, inspiration and similar topics — If you (generic) think it is the word of God, then prove it to me by the way you live your life.

scribal errors), I believe inerrancy can only be argued for the autographs.

However, if we slightly tweak our views of inspiration and inerrancy, as I am trying to do, the entire problem fades away into irrelevance.)

Willing to debate biblical inerrancy for weeks at a time but unwilling to serve at a soup kitchen one day a month is bullshit.

Therefore, inerrancy must be wrong.

The most basic understanding of the Inerrancy of Scripture is that Scripture has «no error.»

There are numerous arguments against the inerrancy of Scripture.

They use the doctrine of inerrancy to support their outlandish teachings from the Bible.

If you embrace the «inerrancy of scripture» then I suggest you use it to find out why God felt this action was necessary.

I've been playing around with a new view on Biblical inerrancy this past month.

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.

I will choose to believe the inerrancy of Scripture.

With your rabid claims of inerrancy I would think you would handle the scriptures with more respect than that.

Inerrancy, propitiation and saved are not code words.

Inerrancy of Scripture is important, but what really matters is what the Bible means.

Such behavior does more to refute Scripture than any logical argument against inerrancy ever could.

(I) The neo-evangelical tradition has its roots in the fundamentalist effort to preserve intact the structure of classical post Reformation Protestant orthodoxy (indeed, it is here that the doctrine of inerrancy received its classical expression).

Bind, the «discovery» was back in 2007... But I do like your selective reading and need to take one story, wed it to a single verse, and declare the inerrancy of scripture.

Contrary to the assertion thrown at those of us who reject biblical inerrancy and / or infallibility, we don't just go around throwing out the parts we don't like.

BTW VPN — If my lack of belief in absolute inerrancy is the reason you choose to ignore my comments... you will soon find yourself talking in a vacuum in this forum as there are very few who accept that premise here.

So here are some of the typical arguments against inerrancy, and how to refute them.

The rallying cry became the «inerrancy of the Scriptures» (the doctrine that defined for its advocates the limits of the post-fundamentalist, «neo-evangelical» coalition which found expression in the National Association of Evangelicals, the Evangelical Theological Society, Christianity Today, and other institutions of the movement).

I do believe in inerrancy as well, but only in the original manuscripts.

God is Featured, Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: bibliology, inerrancy, inspiration, scripture, Theology of the Bible

This also goes with what Jeremy said above under «Inerrancy and debates for control».

I lean strongly towards inerrancy.

Or let it put me this way, you frame the meaning of inerrancy differently, than the most people would, who use this word.

Note that it is not certain that there were six denials, but if we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, there had to have been more than three for it is nearly impossible to get all the references to fit into only three denials.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Christianity, Discipleship, evangelism, inerrancy, myth, pagan, Zeitgeist