Inerrantists, Creationists, and Domionists are all the same – They Deny Christ

Paint, icon. The title: "Revelation of Go...

Image via Wikipedia

I do mean to be harsh. First, read Jason’s post. Normally, I reserve my harshness but when I read statements like this, I cannot help but to return kind for kind,

Ultimately it is the inerrantist who is seeking to yield to the Lordship of Christ on the issue of the nature of Scripture. It is the errantist who is deciding that human reason must/will determine what is right and what is wrong in Scripture.

How very wrong, and how often repeated by the inerrantist, the creationist, and the dominionist (not to mention the KJV-onlyist)

All deny Christ because all demand that they must do something, or they have something special, to complete the revelation of God in Christ. the Inerrantists need a perfect bible for God to speak through perfectly, although God has never said such, nor provided such. The Creationists need a perfect view of Scripture and Science even though science was unknown to the Ancients, and the physical universe was radically different than how we understand it today. The Dominionists no longer believe that God is governing the powers, defeated through Christ, to bring about the Kingdom; now they must conspire and maneuver so that they can establish the Kingdom. Each of them lack the faith necessary to take God at his word, to seek all truth, and to let Christ rule. For them, the Lordship of Christ is only realized when they are proved right. It is not about Christ, but about their particular doctrines.

Further all impose interpretations upon scripture which is eisegesis at best.

Was Paul lying? The assumption of inerrancy is that every word is correct in the Text, and yet Paul says that some of his words are not God’s. So, are they inerrant, although Paul said that they were only his? And if so, then Paul is lying. Or was the Levite correct? Or Ezra? Then why is Ruth an ancestor of Jesus? The fact is, is that Scripture is inspired, from the message to the canon. But to say that they are inerrant is to create a heresy.

Further, Jason is of a bad presupposition that the Scriptures are the word of God, when in fact they are not. Nothing in Scripture expressly states that the Scriptures are the word of God. Indeed, that phrase occurs only in relation to two things, if I am not mistaken, and they are not Scripture. Further, he conflates Scriptures with Science, as both liberals and fundamentalists do, and yet… the Scriptures and the Ancient writers of them had no clue about science. This is where the two far distant heresies merge, in that they place upon Scripture their own preconceived notions of what the Scriptures are supposed to say. For Liberals, then, they say that the Scriptures are wrong while Fundamentalists say that Science and revealed truth are wrong. Now, he’s correct that all knowledge comes from God, but Jason is requiring that God’s revealed knowledge must be received and transmitted perfectly, and thus, adds to God’s revelation. For example, Jason and other inerrantists, against actual knowledge, declare that they have some revelation not contained in Scripture. It is unprovable. It is untestable. In order to believe either what the inerrantist or the creationist has to say, one must forgo all knowledge, and Scripture, and instead accept a story. The problem is, is that inerrancy in of itself is new. That’s why you read of Origen and others struggling with the Four Gospels, or this or that because some things just didn’t make sense. Inerrancy, then, is something man made. It is not in the history of the Church, nor in Scripture, and not revealed by experience. Further, it goes against the Reason given by God to Humanity (Logos). Quickly stated, inerrancy is a heresy because it stands against Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.

When Jason says that the errantists (not sure what that means, but I choose to use the Scriptural word, the inspirationist) will use human reason to decide what is right and wrong, is far off the mark. The fact is, is that the inspirationist is willing to accept that all Truth is God’s Truth. The inspirationist, in looking at Genesis 1 and 2 notes that the Scriptures cannot be wrong, and so instead of relying on the “plain reading” of Scripture which has often times been corrected by other deep studies, such as the Historical-Critical, seeks to examine the passage in context. The inspirationist discovers that Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t talking about science, namely because the Ancients had no clue about science, but about something else. What prompted the inspirationst to dig deeper into Truth? The Spirit of God, who is promised to reveal unto us all truth, moving us to use the tools of the age to rediscover what Scripture meant and thus to uphold Scriptural Authority.

Further, the aforementioned -ists, minus the Dominionists, begin with the assumption that they are correct, and we end with statements such as this:

Historical-critical studies are good so long as the evidence is interpreted under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

In other words, they don’t really start with Christ, but start with their notion of him and seek to prove everything by him. That’s fine, I guess, but not honest. Christ came before the New Testament, and was known to the Father before the composition of the Old. Jason is seemingly against all presuppositions but this one. I am against them all, and further, I believe that if our faith be correct, then everything will point back to the truthfulness of it. This reminds me of the Dominionist statement, linked to in an earlier post, which says that all truth must be held against Scripture. The issue with that is, is that those in power are the ones who set the interpretation of Scripture. So, to further the harshness, Jason has established himself as a Magisterium in which those and those facts which do not meet his interpretation of Scripture is cast aside. Heresy and poppycock.

Since leaving inerrancy, my love and my understanding of the inspiration of Scripture has grown considerably. Has as my faith in them. I will contend that when I was an inerrantist, I had no real faith in God or the Scriptures, because I had to build so many walls to protect them. Why? Does God or the Scriptures need my held to defend them? Hardly. Thank God that I believe in the Scriptures now, and their inspiration.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Joel Watts (10,085 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

10 thoughts on Inerrantists, Creationists, and Domionists are all the same – They Deny Christ

  1. A perfect example is where Satan tells Jesus to bow down to him because all the world had been given to him…and so because its written in the Bible that is true….

    Yet, within the narrative context of the Scriptures…satan is lying… Jesus is the creator of all things and the world would have been given to the devil only if Jesus had of bowed down to him.

  2. ” … a bad presupposition that the Scriptures are the word of God, when in fact they are not. Nothing in Scripture expressly states that the Scriptures are the word of God.

    Thank God that I believe in the Scriptures now, and their inspiration.”

    So you do believe that scripture was inspired by God. But not the word from God. (?) I’ll need to think about that.

    • Gez, the phrase, if we are to remain Scriptural, is applied only to a few things, but none of those things were things written down.

        • This is to no one in particular, but I wanted to add it to the comment section.

          The problem with fundamentalism, of any stripe, and by that I mean the mind-set referenced earlier, is that it starts with A and rejects all things which doesn’t support A. That is what I mean by being dishonest. This, by the way, is the same ‘method’ which others accuse Scientists and Historical-Critics of using.

  3. I have always heard inerrant used in conjunction with infallible. They seem to mean the same per the dictionary, no errors. However, I have also heard infallible used in relation to “not misleading”. Clearly, no one can call the bible “not misleading”. Even among Christians, 100 people read it, and there are 100 different interpretations impacting doctrine. Some one said “So you do believe that scripture was inspired by God. But not the word from God.”…. What I believe, different authors are inspired in different ways, and to different degrees. Inspiration is not dictation. The authors (men) are inspired, but they can’t help but put their own cultural biases, thoughts, spin, and interpretations onto it. And their motivations added to it. No proof-reading by God was provided.

  4. Hmmm..this sounds like a discussion at BioLogos, but more civil. Question: Mainlines accuse evangelicals of using eisegesis, and evangelicals accuse mainliners as using eisegesis..and Catholics accuse all protestants of the same thing. But if the Bible has “errors”, how does one decide which things are true? There is no PROOF for most things in the Bible, yet it’s not blind faith. It seems to be a slippery slope when we say the Bible has errors (or at least the original autographs had errors) I remember reading that the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” formula was added in later. I’m still undecided about that, but it may have been. And how is believing in Biblical Inerrancy locking somebody in? Because it doesn’t change with the times? That’s a good thing…it’s the only rock we have, as time passes, I believe our eyes open more, and we may see things in a new light. I believe fundamentalism is heresy, not necessarily inerrancy. Fundamentalists usually hold onto pet doctrines that aren’t even biblical. I’ve been attacked for questioning the clergy-laity divide or even the fact that I prefer the NET translation over the KJV! (Both of those are entirely separate issues). Tertullian, Augustine, and I believe Clement or Ignatius (I always confuse those 2) mentioned inerrancy, or at least affirmed a presupposition that the Bible contained no errors. And they didn’t use 2 Timothy either. to support their point.

Leave a Reply, Please!