I do not believe in gray, either you are in the light or in the dark. There is nothing that is gray. If you are in the dark, there is no light. If you are in the light there is no darkness. How do you draw a boundary between the darkness and the light? Is it a fine line? Or a spectrum? Well for light there is the rainbow spectrum of Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Indigo, Blue, and Violet. Yet each of these colors are all light.
There is also a matter of measuring the intensity of the light usually in watts. Does a 40 watt bulb light bring light into a room just like a 150 watt bulb? Once the light is on, is the room then light and no longer dark regardless of the intensity of light?
That is how I look at the room, light and dark do not coexist, you are either in a room that is in the light or in a room that is not in light, which is the dark.
As it relates to Theology, the study of God, which yields knowledge about God that should spur one toward wisdom, the application of that knowledge. Either the bible is in the light and teaches about God or in the dark and distorts God? It is either inerrant and infallible in all its content or it is not? Either the bible is true or it is not true? It can not be halfway true. Every half truth is a lie. So why trust any of it? Or which part do I trust?
The Liberty Christians have in Christ, is living in the light. There is no darkness in the liberty Christ gives. Christ liberates from sin and death, the expressions of darkness. So Christian Liberty is not living in gray areas and light areas. It is only living in the light.
If it is gray, that is darkness. My paraphrase of James 2:10 “If you break even one point of the law, you are guilty of all.” For me, the Bible is teaching that gray is a rational way to ignore a little darkness or sin, and gray is darkness and not light.
September 8, 2009 at 1:15 am |
Off and on I check your blog, I found it a long time ago through Vince’s blog and given a recent posting by your wife to his, I decided to look at yours. If you saw me in person, you’d recognize me, even if you don’t recognize my name. It is also important to note that I do not speak for Vince, I’m not trying to and I am quite confident that Vince and I don’t see eye to eye about a great many things, I consider myself a third perspective.
I mostly have a question about your statement, “It is either inerrant and infallible…or it is not”. It is helpful to have you clarify what things you accept as inerrant and infallible and what those terms mean. I’m confident we disagree, but it is best if I disagree with what you actually mean, versus me guessing what you mean.
How is it you came to be so clear in your statement? For me, something is inerrant and infallible if it is *found* to be inerrant and infallible, not because it is *necessary* for it to be inerrant and infallible (given whatever is meant by those).
For example, I can propose, “The Bible is inerrant with respect to its description of history in every detail; names, dates, numbers, etc.” A few things must take place: First, we have to determine when the Biblical authors are actually describing history versus writing a story to convey meaning, not such an easy task itself. Then we have to use various techniques to evaluate the historical description and consider its accuracy, another difficult task. Some descriptions are more difficult than others to evaluate, but there are enough easy ones to actually do this. If a fault is found in the Biblical description, my proposal is invalidated. As an aside: I don’t intend to work through one of these, I know that we’ll disagree; you’ll say there is no fault and I’ll say there is, in the end, we’ll only agree to disagree
What does it mean if the proposal is invalidated? It depends upon why or why not historical infallibility is necessary from one’s perspective. To me, this is a question of philosophy, not theology. My personal view is that one must proceed from Philosophy -> History -> Theology. In other words, one’s Philosophical understanding informs their view of History and their view of History combined with Philosophy informs their view of Theology. Now, I realize that for a great many people it works in exactly the opposite direction, Theology informs History and those combined inform Philosophy.
Here is a suggestion with which you might have a difficult time: Using Vince’s description of the Liberal vs. Conservative Divide, I propose it is possible to both be Conservative and accept the Bible as not inerrant and infallible…according to what I suspect you mean by those terms.
jdm
September 8, 2009 at 9:18 am |
Agree again.
Though I put the absolutes in the realm of faith and not in the realm of certain knowledge. It is by faith that I can KNOW Jesus and be in the light. This is a faith experience. My reasoning experience is necessary training (Bible) to help me ’see’ the path, but I still must apply the Bible with a great deal of humility in my heart. I experience a great deal of gray and darkness that my flesh, the world, or satan brings into life to make me weak-kneed in my faith from time to time. That is why faith is faith, our walk is faith, our knowing is faith. It is knowing with humble trust.
I don’t see fully the brilliant light of G-d yet. I must always have humility in what my ears and eyes of faith see. The gray is not in heaven or in the future new earth, but it is here on this old earth. Thus, humble faith shines the brightest light. The current darkness has a grey uncertainty that is used by G-d because the kind action of humble faith made in this world is a brilliant light that lasts into eternity. The humble faith-filled fool dwarfs the proud knower. G-d is creating a purer higher lovingkindness born of the faithful fool, because it bursts out of the grayness of this world. Kind actions in a kind world would not be nearly so pure.
To the one who is certain in his ’seeing’ and ‘knowing’ I would say, uncertainty is a blessing to us in a dark disguise. With G-d’s help only faith can steady us on the Rock of His Salvation.
——————————————————————–
There is a story written by Martin Buber of a proud young athiest arguing with a whole school of brilliant rabbis. He continually thwarts every argument for belief. Finally, he approaches an old rabbi who is not presenting any arguments. “What do you say? How come you can believe in G-d?”
The old rabbi merely said, “You are too smart for me, young man. I cannot give you any reasoning that will prove to you that G-d exists and that G-d is good.”
The young man triumphantly boasted loudly enough for all to hear, “And what if G-d doesn’t exist, old man?”
The old rabbi quietly responded, “But what if G-d does?”
The young man had no reply. He left to ponder anew his place in the world-to-come.
September 8, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
Replace the words inerrant and infallible with the word sufficient. In my own life, my disciplined and regular study and reading of the bible are sufficient for me. It takes time and effort on my part to seek after God, but He is faithful to illuminate my mind, grace by grace as the Apostle Paul puts it or as the Prophet Isaiah phrases it, precept upon precept.
The fundamental precept being Who is Jesus Christ? Walking through John 9; Jesus starts as a man, Then becomes a prophet, and finally, my Messiah;
This is my definition of liberal theology as it relates to Christianity. The bible is not a sufficient source of authority, and the liberal Christian desires more: more experience, more knowledge, more…The current Redemptive Revelation of God does not satisfy.
September 15, 2009 at 10:09 am |
Wow. I commend the thoughtful ability to replace ‘inerrant and infallible’ with ’sufficient’. There are too many that make ‘inerrant and infallible’ into fighting words. I view ‘Biblical infalliblity’ as ‘Biblical sufficiency’. “Inerrancy” is a different topic, which I will get to in my future blogging on Moderate Christian Theology — maybe before the year is gone.
The Christian does need to hold the Bible as authoritative for their orthodoxy and orthopraxy. For these it is sufficient.
‘Inspired’ is really the claim the Bible makes about itself, which means G-d’s Spirit breathed G-d’s purpose and sufficiency into it.
September 15, 2009 at 12:05 pm |
By the way, I am in complete support of permitting some Christians to believe Bible is inerrant and infallible in the strictest definition of each. I just hope they permit a little wiggle room for those who prefer ’sufficient’ instead.