Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

Can you give us a better idea of what kind of "measure" that is?How would you compare the holes in the Bible with, say, the holes in the telephone book? Or your car's ownwer's manual? Or Treasure Island? Relatively, how reliable are they?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What is the "criteria of inspiration"?How do we know if a particular interpretation was written by a scholar that had met that criteria of inspiration?What is the method by which we determine that someone is being led by the Holy Spirit, especially if their interpretation is not what we personnally believe?

qualitatively minor? Like the difficulty between the Southern Baptists and Assembly of God denominations on the use of "tongues"?
Southern Baptists: Tongues are a manifestation caused by Satan.
Assembly of God: Tongues are a manifestation of the Holy Spirit within.Now, what was that called when you attribute a work of Satan to the Holy Spirit or vice-versa? Oh yeah...blapheming the Holy Spirit, the one unforgivable sin.Could you point out how this differing interpretation can be classified as "qualitatively minor"?Which group was not inspired by the Holy Spirit when interpreting the Bible? You can use your Holy Spirit inspiration to provide the answer. I just want to know which group of millions will be in Hell even though they thought they wouldn't.

The idea is that the denominations that share an understanding about how salvation is received are one flock. They may not be in the end for this or that reason, but that's the criterion.

Ok. This appears to lump Catholics, Baptists, Methodists.....all in one flock. Then, by your criterion, all the denominations that accept the idea that humans are one of the extant species on this planet all descended from a common ancestor organism, are Christians and will enter Heaven? What do you mean by this statement?Edited by LinearAq, : No reason given.

that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're talking major concepts here, like "how do we get saved?" or "how many Gods are there?" or "was Jesus man or God or both?" There are conflicting views on this amongst groups who all call themselves Christian and consider the Bible as their holy book.Other than that, the Bible's meaning is universally the same, according to Faith.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Catholics believe in salvation by works plus faith so are not included among the Protestant denominations that believe in salvation by faith alone.What I meant was that it could be that in the end something like believing or not believing in tongues could define the difference between salvation or not, since you had put it so drastically. I don't think so but I allowed it because of the way you put it.

But that is what the discussion is about. I said that those who share a common idea of salvation are generally regarded as brothers and sisters in Christ despite other disagreements we may have. These would not share the same view of salvation I'm talking about. If you do not believe Jesus is God, or you don't believe in the Trinity, you have a different idea of salvation than that which unites the denominations I'm talking about. Yes, and I said those who share a common idea of salvation are grouped together as one church despite other disagreements. There are many of these. Yes, there are many others that claim to be Christian but are not included in this particular grouping because they have a different view of salvation. Some interpretations are false, of course. Why should that be hard to understand?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, the message was spread verbally first. The Bible is not one book. It is a compilation of many writings, and most of the New Testament ones are letters. They're not the only ones written with our message in it.So, no, I don't think the only way we know about the promise and message is "the book."

My whole point was that both groups say the Holy Spirit has lead them to these beliefs that are so diametrically opposed to each other.
Why would the Holy Spirit provide such different interpretations of the Bible?Is every believer in one of the denominations failing to use the Holy Spirit in their interpretation? Are none of them asking God to help them when they read the Holy Word? I find it difficult to believe that there isn't at least some small percentage of these people sincerely crying out to God for His guidance. Why has He denied it to that one denomination? I can think of no other explanation than God turning His back on those who are asking for help.I am not lead by the Holy Spirit, so I may be missing something. Perhaps you could provide some insight as to what God is doing here.

Actually, it's not. To the early church, it was the apostles that held authority. The job of the church was to cling to apostolic teaching (which they referred to as "apostolic tradition").Therefore, the criterion for what belonged in the canon was whether an apostle wrote it, or whether a companion of the apostles wrote it.Modern scholarship can shed light on whether they made accurate choices.

What do you mean by all Canon? If you mean all Canon associated with the "orthodox" or "mainstream" churches, then yes. I don't think any of the 39 books of the OT found in the Protestant Bible were questioned.As to the NT writings, we have to call the 1st century unknown and debatable enough to be ignored. By the mid-2nd century, however, you'll not find a mainstream church without the four Gospels, Acts, Romans, both Corinthian letters, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians (I think on that one), First Thessalonians, and probably 1st John.That seemed like a strange question. Were you going to include the Ebionite and Marcionite canons or something?

Or Samaritan or Ethiopian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Even following the Holy Spirit we may misread Him, or revert to following our own flesh from time to time without recognizing it. Or we may get caught up in exciting experiences that we mistake for God, or misinterpret in our enthusiasm -- this is a particular risk in the signs-and-wonders or charismatic groups. But I have no doubt that a sincere persistent seeking for God's will on any question will eventually be answered.

Some saw the miracles and believed. One hung on a cross beside Christ and believed. Yet another rode on a road to Damascus and believed. You were impressed by this man Jesus. The power of the gospel can work through all kinds of devices - including Christian unity. Unity is not the only way for a person to come to belief.It seems to me that if the Bible is not taken as inerrant at least in places then you had no reason to be impressed by this man and his 12 disciples. And if you have some mechanism with which to detect that which you suppose to be accurate and that which you suppose not to be accurate then you have reason to suppose the mechanism you employ to be inerrant in deciding these things for you - which you presumably do not. 'agnosticism' on the issue of inerrancy seems a safer bet if you cannot be sure either way.There might not be a need for it to be inerrant in your view. But would it do any harm if it was?Edited by iano, : No reason given.