John Piper’s son Abraham Piper skewers evangelicals as his star rises on TikTok

[Speedwell]

That's not what infallibility means, that's what outsiders think it means.

Pooh. Go over to the creation v. evolution forum. You will soon see that it's not "outsiders" who are taking that line.

 

[public hermit]

I find no material inconsistencies; i.e., that change the import of anything therein.
Nor do I expect eye-witness accounts to be identical in every detail

Do you expect eye-witness reports to be infallible? What about reports of eye-witness reports? That's what we have in the gospels.

Trying to harmonize the inconsistencies in the gospels is good practice for a fundamentalist. The moment one starts suggesting weird possibilities to make it all work, they should realize they've assumed a principle instead of just letting the text speak for itself.

Without the testimony of the Holy Spirit, how else would anyone know with certainty that this millennia-old record is true revelation from God

The Spirit can confer faith in the risen Christ without needing to confer some supplemental faith in the infallibility of the scriptures.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you expect eye-witness reports to be infallible? What about reports of eye-witness reports? That's what we have in the gospels.

Trying to harmonize the inconsistencies in the gospels is good practice for a fundamentalist. The moment one starts suggesting weird possibilities to make it all work, they should realize they've assumed a principle instead of just letting the text speak for itself.



The Spirit can confer faith in the risen Christ without needing to confer some supplemental faith in the infallibility of the scriptures.

Just a side note: "infallibility" is not quite the same thing as literal inerrancy. Most Traditional Christians (i.e. Christians not subscribing to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura) as well as some Mainline Protestants believe in the infallibility of scripture without believing in literal inerrancy.

 

[public hermit]

Just a side note: "infallibility" is not quite the same thing as literal inerrancy. Most Traditional Christians (i.e. Christians not subscribing to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura) as well as some Mainline Protestants believe in the infallibility of scripture without believing in literal inerrancy.

What's the difference? I take it you're saying infallibility is a weaker claim than literal inerrancy. I am assuming they mean the same thing, so I'm not aware of the difference. It must be stronger than the general claim that the scriptures are unique and sufficient for faith and practice.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true!

Yep! God authored it and unashamedly employs the "foolishness of preaching" it to "save them that believe".

 

[Speedwell]

What's the difference? I take it you're saying infallibility is a weaker claim than literal inerrancy. I am assuming they mean the same thing, so I'm not aware of the difference. It must be stronger than the general claim that the scriptures are unique and sufficient for faith and practice.

It's a different claim, equivalent to your phrase "sufficient for faith and practice." The Catholic wording is "infallible in matters of faith and morals."

 

[public hermit]

It's a different claim, equivalent to your phrase "sufficient for faith and practice." The Catholic wording is "infallible in matters of faith and morals."

That's helpful. I'll quit using "infallible" that way, since I was using it to mean inerrant.

 

[Pommer]

I think they're making the point that Christ treated the scripture as true! Which is a valid argument by Christians for Christians. Personally, I only claim the autographs as infallible - nevertheless, since in my experience the Lord speaks to me mainly thru the scripture, I view that as his seal of approval on them.

Well Jesus told the Disciples that after He went back to sit at the right hand of the Father, the “Spirit of truth” would come to lead them into all truth...but apparently that didn’t work out so good and the Bible enshrines the truth, now. Or something.

 

[Rachel20]

Well Jesus told the Disciples that after He went back to sit at the right hand of the Father, the “Spirit of truth” would come to lead them into all truth...but apparently that didn’t work out so good and the Bible enshrines the truth, now. Or something.

There were later revelations to John, Paul, etc...though, and this could have been what he meant. Or, applying it to myself personally, it took the "Spirit of truth" to lead me into the truth of God's existence, salvation, scripture, etc...

 

[Pommer]

There were later revelations to John, Paul, etc...though, and this could have been what he meant. Or, applying it to myself personally, it took the "Spirit of truth" to lead me into the truth of God's existence, salvation, scripture, etc...

I’m having trouble understanding how having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is somehow deficient and needs to be supplemented with the Bible, which seems to be the SOP for Christianity.

 

[renniks]

The Fundamentals require belief in a specific theory of the Atonement;

Says who?

 

[Clare73]

Do you expect eye-witness reports to be infallible? What about reports of eye-witness reports? That's what we have in the gospels.

Trying to harmonize the inconsistencies in the gospels is good practice for a fundamentalist.

What inconsistencies?

The moment one starts suggesting weird possibilities to make it all work, they should realize they've assumed a principle instead of just letting the text speak for itself.

The Spirit can confer faith in the risen Christ without needing to confer some supplemental faith in the infallibility of the scriptures.

The Spirit moves as and does as he wills (John 3:8).

 

[Speedwell]

Says who?

The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The collection of essays which gave fundamentalist Evangelical Protestantism its name. Quoted in post #4, the Penal Substitution theory.

 

[Clare73]

Says who?

It states "penal atonement," that Jesus died as the penalty to pay for sin.

 

[Rachel20]

I’m having trouble understanding how having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is somehow deficient and needs to be supplemented with the Bible, which seems to be the SOP for Christianity.

I understand your point. But the New Testament may have been part of all that, in which case you're really just objecting to his methods.

 

[renniks]

It states "penal atonement," that Jesus died as the penalty to pay for sin.

Penal atonement is, as I understand it, God pouring out his wrath on Jesus. It's the standard calvinist view, but not necessarily the most popular view in Christianity overall.

 

[Speedwell]

Penal atonement is, as I understand it, God pouring out his wrath on Jesus. It's the standard calvinist view, but not necessarily the most popular view in Christianity overall.

Agreed, but (to get back to the OP) it is frequently asserted by Fundamentalists as the only ancient and Apostolic view permitted for authentic Christians.

 

[renniks]

Agreed, but (to get back to the OP) it is frequently asserted by Fundamentalists as the only ancient and Apostolic view permitted for authentic Christians.

Ok I never heard that in any fundamentalist church..
that I can remember.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've never understood the hostility toward fundamentalists by other believers - is it their political positions or religious positions that are the main cause? I'm trying to figure out why the church of Philadelphia in Rev would draw the Lord's promise "and they shall know that I have loved you" because when I look around, it's the fundamentalists that are attacked the most - by believers and unbelievers alike - and this intrigues me in light of Revelation 3:9

They are often attacked here for their views on gays.

As to the believers and unbelievers alike, I notice there are some of both here that defend the gay lifestyle....unfortunately.

I'd say the fundamentalists views on homosexuality either is, or at the very least, is one of the main reasons they are attacked everywhere... or for simply beliveing in the bible and being vocal about it.

 

[Speedwell]

They are often attacked here for their views on gays.

As to the believers and unbelievers alike, I notice there are some of both here that defend the gay lifestyle....unfortunately.

I'd say the fundamentalists views on homosexuality either is, or at the very least, is one of the main reasons they are attacked everywhere... or for simply beliveing in the bible and being vocal about it.

It depends on what you mean by "support the gay lifestyle." There is really no reason that gays should experience any discrimination or legal disadvantage in a secular state, whether we think homosexuality is a sin or not.