I am not sure if I have missed the truth about inerrant after all. Once upon a time (0-100 AD) it was actually truth as in John’s gospel. Inerrancy is a good word,…it is a word that describes what we believe the bible is….it is descriptive and makes sense to us….but the bible didn’t seem to care to use our word to defend what is revealed.

Holy Scripture did use “truth”.

John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (4) In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. (5) The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (6) There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. (7) He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. (8) He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. (9) There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. (10) He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. (11) He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. (12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 14:5-7 Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” (6) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (7) “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

I actually prefer the word “Truth”, yet I think I may understand the reason that “inerrant” was introduced to try and clarify the politicized definition in American Evangelicalism. Maybe the Baptist has coined a better or more accurate word than “Truth” …possibly “inerrant?” Truth seems to be the better choice for me at this point because it rules out error, even though I do agree that the bible is inerrant as well.

Blessings,
Chris

And inerrancy’s absence from the statement is something akin to the absence of a statement about collective bargaining in a manifesto from the Teamsters. Such an omission would suggest that the Teamsters are becoming something that they have never been before—abandoning former emphases to pursue other things. Yes, for the National Rifle Association not to say anything about collective bargaining would communicate absolutely nothing about whether the NRA believes in collective bargaining, but it would have an entirely different significance coming from the domain of Hoffa.

I suggest that my hypothetical is precisely analogous to the inability to employ the word “inerrant” or one of its derivatives in a purportedly evangelical document.

It sounds like Al wants more specific definition…. as all Christian leaders should demand. I can see why these authors of the EM are moving the direction they are….and with that I am pleased. I deal with them in the ETS. I would not see any need to sign on to the document,… not that it presents anything that I am against, ….and I think it presents many things that need to be heard, but I am eager for the next release that moves even closer to the real evangelistic revelation of scripture and the gospel.

Thanks for the post Robin,

Blessings,
Chris

Maybe I missed something. Mohler’s way out did mine.

Thanks for the nice words though.

Sola Gratia!

Bock says….”Rather than simply dragging out the old labels and category concerns (liberal; conservative; centrist; Catholic; atheist; too ecumenical sounding, like the Evangelical and Catholics Together document; not enough women nor ethnics), can we ask what in the document is a problem or what is well said? Is it really a key concern to ask who was initially asked to sign a document that invites anyone to sign? Should we not ask instead if one should sign anew on to such an array of commitments? Should we not ask why or why not sign? Can or should one as a believer-citizen today engage with conviction for one’s values without doing things that fuel the present cultural war? Is this question worth asking and pondering?

The manifesto simply says emphatically, “Yes.” So that is the point. Pause and ponder anew what we evangelicals are truly called to do–and pray it be done with a balance that honors God, reflects the gospel, and loves our neighbor, even in the midst of serious debate. Is that point worth reaffirming with a signature no matter where we are on the evangelical spectrum? Is it? In other words, to reflect or not to reflect, that is the question.”

I’m glad to see Dr. Bock trying to give some context to the intent. It should be helpful as people consider working with or not working with each other. I’m glad Ed Stetzer has posted Dr. Bock’s comments.

Blessings,
Chris

Sometimes you prove what I suspect: you do not read well the comments of others. Rather, you answer back based on other than one’s written words.

I plainly noted, Debbie: “you can have [the Manifesto] if you think [Inerrancy's] there.” Why you would posts as if I am attempting to persuade you otherwise is incredible.

Take it; sign it; support it; memorize it; teach it; post it on your blog; adopt it as your faith statement of your blog; copy/paste it in comment threads; hand it out in SS classes; adopt it at your church, your women’s Bible Study, your home; ad infiinitum, ad nauseum.

I hope that is broad enough to be clear that I am not attempting to persuade you not to accept the manifesto.

Now that that is clear, to even suggest that I have “twist[ed] the words of this document to unrecognizable as [you] believe [I] have done” is, in your words, Ms. Kaufman, “not only unjust, it’s wrong.”

I suggest you deal with precisely what the brothers say here.

I trust your pastor preaches well today. With that, I am…

Peter

I just don’t think everything is a battle, a war, a fight, or even a just cause. I do believe we should stand for what we believe, it’s the way some stand that is the problem and that is what this document addresses, at least in my opinion. We can’t treat these things as if we were at war. Look at the polls of what people think of us. Now some can write that off as that is the way the world is. I think we need to listen. We need to treat unbelievers and those we disagree with more kindly. I talk about myself when I say this. Sharp, harsh words, many of which you use frequently Peter, as well as I have, hurt people. We cannot justify this. This document is telling us to be kinder and gentler, to bring Christ back into the center. To stand for abortion, marriage, against gay marriage, but don’t do it with bullets in our Bible, or hitting people with our Bible. But instead to genuinely love those who are gay, going through marital troubles, thinking about abortion. A love that only God can produce in us. We can’t even take credit for the love. To discuss, but do it with gentleness, kindness, while giving the truth of our convictions. This is something that many are not trained to do. Onward Christian Soldiers is not one of my favorite hymns for a reason.

I and my husband both believe that this document is one of the best we have ever read and that it contains the fundamentals of the faith while reclaiming the word Evangelistic. I agree with every line of this document. If you do not agree, then you are free not to sign it. But to twist the words of this document to unrecognizable as I believe you have done is not only unjust, it’s wrong. I hope people do not just read what I or you or anyone says about the document and take it as the end all. I hope that all read all the pages which are about 20 in number by PDF file and really see what it says before making a judgment.

As for as the “strawman” goes, Debbie, I’m bored of that being used when there’s no real criticism to offer. I pass.

But for the concession that “inerrancy is covered in this document to my satisfaction”, good: You can have it if you think it’s there.

My guess you haven’t a clue what the Moderates were arguing for during the 80s. Those of us who lived through that mess and attempted to weigh out the costs will not fail to hear the same tired and inadequate language about Scripture and Scripture’s nature once again being resurrected.

With that, I am…

Peter