i'm currently cooking a sandwich
so what is it about the church that is so infallible, that it's statement about the bible, which is not contained within in the bible, is that the bible is the only source of truth? is the church so proud that it could not consider otherwise... pride, the sin of the pharisees. and why is this never questioned?
interesting.. i don't what to think of it, but it just came out on nowhere..
2 comments:
I don't know if I'd say "the church" has not considered it... I mean, it's been 2000 years, and lots of theologians and laypeople have thought and fought about the twin issues of inspiration and inerrancy in that time.
The basic problem is that if you can't trust one part of the Bible, then why should you trust another part? ie. if it's wrong about, say, women then it could be wrong about, say, salvation. For example, if literalists admit that there are discrepancies between the resurrection accounts, they would hardly have a very certain foundation for their faith... and conservatives generally don't like being uncertain about anything!
Still, there's a spectrum, with people like evil fundamentalist YEC at one end and evil liberals at the other... with Anglican's smugly in the middle! Nah, actually the Anglicans at St. John's are much closer to the YEC... actually, most of them are YEC!
My comment is much longer than your blog entry, I'm quite proud of that.
that statement about questioning was more just a tag at the end of my main statement, it wasn't explicit.
I guess the problem is, is that the church is asking you to have 100% faith in the bible, instead of having faith in Jesus. I know they'd never claim to put the bible before Jesus, but they almost effectively are.
Post a Comment