Hey where can I sign-up?! The anti-Christ will be a hero ending the GREAT GREAT depression that is perhaps about to descend, and he will search us out and destroy us. So let us remember, that God will always keep a remnant for His purposes. And in the end…we win.

Rich Fallis

Ewan McDonald.

But we need to wrap this thread up. If you would really “love” to be convinced, then do some suggested reading. No one can make the case for an important biblical and theological principle in 100 words (as these comments are meant to be!), or even in a 1000 word article. As I say, you claim to have read all these arguments anyway.

But one last chance here. I present a dozen volumes which all make the case for inerrancy in particular and infallibility in general, along with some other related concerns. We will be convinced of your “love” to be convinced when you get back to us, after having read at least a third of these volumes. They are:

Boice, James Montgomery. Does Inerrancy Matter? International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979.
Carson, D.A. and John Woodbridge, eds., Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon. IVP, 1986.
Carson, D.A. and John Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth. Zondervan, 1983.
Geisler, Norman and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible. Revised edition. Moody Press, 1968, 1986.
Geisler, Norman, Biblical Inerrancy. Zondervan, 1981.
Geisler, Norman, Systmatic Theology, vol. 1 Introduction, Bible. Bethany Huse, 2002.
Helm, Paul and Carl Trueman, eds., The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture. Eerdmans, 2002.
Montgomery, John Warwick, ed., God’s Inerrant Word. Bethany Fellowship, 1974.
Nicole, Roger and J. Ramsey Michaels, eds., Inerrancy and Common Sense. Baker, 1980.
Sproul, R.C., Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary. International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1980.
Wright, N.T., Scripture and the Authority of God. SPCK, 2005.
Young, Edward, Thy Word is Truth. Eerdmans,, 1957.

Happy reading.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I have been following this whole dialogue and it seems to me that one of the fundamental ingredience that a man needs to live as a follower of Christ is Faith.

Faith in what? Faith in God’s word being the ‘Truth’ and Faith in God’s Character.

A child doesn’t have to have a comprehensive understanding of ‘Food & Water’ before eating. The only thing that the child requires is faith or the knowledge that without eating and drinking such ingredience he will die.

Jesus himself says,
“Assuredly, I say to you, whosoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (Luke 18:15-17).

It sound’s too simple doesn’t it?! That’s because God didn’t make it difficult to enter into eternal life (even unto the simple). But to those who think that by their own abilities that the can achieve this everlasting life, God doesn’t allow in. (Rom 1:28-32)

Its common among people to desire safety and security and to exalt reason beyond faith, however Faith equals Risk. And some times we need to respond to God like Mary (the mother of Jesus), “Let it be to me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38)

We also need faith in God’s Character. Either he is or he isn’t the Way, the Truth and The Life (always good, all knowing, powerful, ever present, unable to lie) – as absolute and unchangeable.
If we build upon the foundation (our Doctrine) that God is ‘unknown’ in his Character. Then we’ll be looking for some other ‘thing or being’ to reflect our own personal preferences and choice of values. And the result (the fruit) of our lives will reflect our choices of what we build upon.

Jesus loves you Andrew, but a condition of entry into the Kingdom of God is humility, faith and repentance. I pray that you find Jesus when you seek him with all of your heart.
Michael Dawson

But I am disappointed that Bill has still not answered my questions, I don’t think.

From my reading, and discussions with others, it seems to me that those who propose the inerrancy of scripture do so for 4 basic reasons (and I think this also sums up, to a large extent, what many scholars who are proponents of inerrancy would state:
1. They believe the bible is historically accurate.
2. They believe the church’s tradition and its history point to acceptance of inerrancy.
3. They believe that the bible claims its own inerrancy.
4. And their own individual experience of God leads them to trust the scriptures are inerrant.

Again, I humbly submit, Bill, that if you follow this thinking, it doesn’t seem to me to make for a very strong case.

In point of fact, if I understand it correctly, then I can understand the potential pain in Spencer’s quote from Augustine of Hippo’s letter: “It seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false”.
The idea is painful for us. It certainly was for me, for I was raised in what I call, (speaking of myself), a fundamentalist, literalist Presbyterian congregation. And moving from that position, as I felt I had to do, as I studied the scriptures and writings of scholars which made sense to me, without some of the presuppositions I’d been raised to accept for whatever reason, was one of the most emotionally, and spiritually frightening and painful journeys and periods of my life. And yet, I would humbly, gently say, that although I wish I could go back to the security I felt in that earlier place, (what appeared to me to be a “black and white” world, where everything was clear, and seemed to have it’s place), once those presuppositions were removed, I could not, and still feel I cannot.

For (referring to the 4 points above):
1. Even if the bible is historically accurate, which you know I don’t believe, I don’t believe that necessarily or logically proves inerrancy. The bible is surely not just history.
2. Even if the church’s tradition and history point to acceptance of inerrancy, the church has been mistaken on so many issues, and I believe logically still is, because of the vehement disagreement between its branches, for instance.
3. As you know from my earlier comments, I have found nothing in the OT or NT to make a good argument for inerrancy, 2 Tim 3:16 being, in my opinion, a very bad argument, for instance.
4. And our own individual experience of God is another exceptionally dangerous argument to use, because of the subjectivity of our experience, and the ease with which history shows we are found to be mistaken.

I plead with you to consider these points, and if you feel I have missed something pivotal, share it with me. Because I believe that one of the strongest reasons for taking me seriously is that I would actually love, in a way, for you to be able to convince me of your position. I would, in a way, love to be able to view the bible and the stories of Jesus as I once did. But I can’t, at this stage. And maybe the question for you to ask then, is why not?

(I will be away from my laptop for a few days, but again, thank you for your time and interest).
Kind regards
Andrew Prior

The original discussion here was Francis Macnab. Gresham was quite right to argue that theological liberalism is not a brand of Christianity, but the enemy of Christianity. It is clear from Macnab’s own words that he no longer can be called a biblical Christian. He has rejected the very heart of the Christian faith, which declares Jesus Christ to be the supreme and final revelation of God, the incarnate Word of God, attested to by the written Word of God in both Testaments, the sole means of reconciliation with God, and the final judge of all mankind.

All that is rejected by Macnab, so he has of his own volition forfeited the right to be called a follower of Jesus Christ. A follower of Jesus is one who obeys his commands and agrees to the truthfulness of his words. Theological liberals deny that Scripture is the word of God, and so tell Jesus he is simply wrong, when he proclaims, for example, “Thy Word is Truth” (John 17:17).

I share the same impatience and uneasiness with liberalism and false doctrine that Jesus and the disciples had. They in fact made it quite clear that we are to watch out for false prophets, false Christs, those who would reject sound doctrine, and so on. They did not mince their words. Paul said those who reject the gospel should be accursed, and so on. The NT is full of strong language and stern warnings for those who would depart from the truth and lead others into deception.

As to your concerns about Scripture, I continue to find them rather disingenuous. On the one hand, you want me to explain my position on biblical inerrancy, as if you want to know how it can be argued for. On the other you claim to have “spent a fair percentage of my life with fundamentalist and literalist writings as my staple diet” and “have read much conservative writing”. But if you are so familiar with these writings, then you should fully know how those with a high view of Scripture make their case. Thus there is no need for me to repeat the arguments here. They are easily found, and I can again recommend numerous books which reflect my position. (But given your apparent lack of interest in any of the titles I have thus far recommended, this seems rather pointless.) So you evidently know the arguments all too well but have simply rejected them.

But if you really don’t know the case for a high view of Scripture, then your claims to have been there and done that are only so much bluff and bluster. In which case, we then need to urge you to stop pretending you have rejected the historic Christian position, and really start to study what biblical scholars are saying about these issues.

Thus I grow weary, to be honest, with what looks like more games being played here. They are just like what I get from my atheist buddies. Same thing exactly.

And as I say, you sound exactly like my atheist friends with your objections. You seem to be singing from exactly the same song sheet. You trot out the same old lame objections, heard over and over again, all of which have been readily answered, time and time again. The red herring about Luther is another one of those. His theological concerns about James and the place of works in no way detracts from his high view of Scripture. He never declared the book of James to be non-canonical and he included it in his translation of the NT.

And you are equally unhelpful on the issue of the NT canon. All 27 canonical books were recognised from early on, and what culminated in the fourth century was already well in place in the Muratorain canon (AD 170), and the Apostolic canon (300), for example. The Fathers of the second century cited every book of the NT except 3 John. But again, according to your earlier comments, you know all this already; it is just that is has not been found to your liking, so you have rejected it.

I tire of these juvenile objections which I so regularly hear being trotted out by the atheists and folks like Dan Brown. As I tell them when they come to this site, there are plenty of great answers to all of their objections if they are really serious. But it usually turns out that they are not at all serious. They have already made up their minds, and they simply want to argue for argument’s sake.

They remind me of what Paul warned about: those who are “ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7). Theological liberals put their supreme trust in human reasoning, not in Jesus Christ or his Word.

I certainly have time for the proper use of reason, as the 900 articles on this site demonstrate. But I have little time with those who have decided they have rejected God’s word and the claims of Christ, and peddle instead the unhelpful pap of liberalism.

As I say, it seems that you have made up your mind here. That’s fine. But then, as I argue in my commenting rules, feel free to push your agenda on your own website. Time is too short, and there are too many people heading to a lost eternity, that need to hear biblical truth. It seems Macnab does not give a rip about that, with his “new faith”. And it is not entirely clear that you do either.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch