Biblical Inerrancy and Following Christ

Kim:
I contend that one can follow Christ w/o believing in the inerrancy of the Bible.

William:
Well, what comes to my mind, frequently is that II Peter epistle (paraphrasing) "Paul has said some things which are difficult to understand and those who lack a foundation twist and distort those statements to their own destruction as they do other Biblical passages." Then also, Mohandas Gandhi seemed to take the Beatitudes as a plan of action, yet explicitly states in his autobiography why he rejects Christianity as his personal religion. Also, the end of "Job" where the God says "Job, tell your friends that I am angry with them because they spoke of me incorrectly." Yet, what Job's friends say are verses in the Bible.

That verse from Solomon comes to mind, "There are ways that seem good unto a man but the end thereof is death."

I am reminded of C.S. Lewis statement (paraphrased) - I believe that I am saved by the crucifixion, but as to how and why that is so, I cannot say.

Based on the above paraphrase, I think C.S. Lewis would agree with Kim.

Pelagius argued with Augustine that IF it were possible for the sin of one man, Adam, to condemn all future generations including those who never hear of Adam, then Christ's crucifixion should be able to save all, including those who never hear of Christ.

Then too, one must consider the force of "FOR my sins" i.e. did the Incarnation and Crucifixion come about as a result of the fallen human nature (which would make it a cause and effect), or is it more about the individual sins of all people past, present and future, come upon this crucified one in such a way that He who is without sin BECOMES sin itself.


Hmmm... suddenly, I wonder what Jesus would have done regarding 9/11 had He been president. Surely He would have said "if nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve."

Well, then, what would a wise follower/imitator of Jesus done regarding 9/11. I wonder what Jimmy Carter would have done (and he is still alive to ask.)

There is the curious notion of "the unknown sin" in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (most evident in ancient daily prayers from the monastic tradition), versus a more Western notion of reason and consent being necessary prerequisites to guilt.
If I remember, the introduction to Job states that he sacrificed daily for his children lest mayhaps they had sinned unawares.

Now, inerrancy implies predication, something is asserted, and therefore something is comprehended and further there is only one correct way to comprehend it and perhaps countless ways to misunderstand it. But IF there can be an unknown sin, then what happens to the notion of inerrancy.

The possibility of an unknown sin goes right back to Solomon's "there are things which seemeth good unto a man, but the end thereof is death." Perhaps we intend only good when we formulate a new medicine, or write a new law, or engineer genes, yet unwittingly we cause great damage by our well intentioned actions.

Just the other day, I was thinking about that verse where Paul says that it is "shameful for a woman's voice to be heard" in a church, but then elsewhere we are told of a pious family with two daughters who are PROPHETESSES. Now, we do not see any women prophets in the subsequent history of the Church. One presumes that a prophet speaks not with his/her own voice, but with that of God, or at least a messenger of God.

Now, to top it all off, we know that the very first pages of the "New Testament" were the epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, written around 55A.D., which means that for a period of 15 or more years, people managed to be Christians without benefit of the New Testament.

Oh, by the way, Huckabee was asked by Newsweek about "biblical inerrancy" and he answered "Oh that just means if you follow the advice of the Bible you cannot go wrong."

I am reminded of that PRE-Babalonian captivity verse in Samuel which says that God commanded David to take a census count, and the POST-captivity verse which says that the devil tempted David to take a census. Now the Babalonians were very likely Zoroastrians seeing everything as a great struggle between a good Ahura-Mazda God and an evil Mainu devil figure. Then there are fundamentalists who feel they can reconcile such seeming conflicts of verse.

Ah, but Jesus DID write something in the sand, as the crowd debated who should cast the first stone at the adulteress. Some early Greek theologians speculate that Jesus was writing things in the sand, known only to various individuals in the crowd, reminding them of their own sins, and one by one, they walked away, until only the woman remained. If this is what happened then it would mean that Jesus is that "only knower of the heart."