Saturday, September 23, 2006

answer to Matt Slick

since I was gone from CARM (banned) Matt bad a big show down and banned all the bad people and put everything right. He put up this "sticky" to answer it all and here's my response:

Quote:Matt SlickThere has been a great deal of friction here on the discussion board about the issue of inerrancy. Unfortunately, the "he said she said" argument-counter-argument has cascaded into an avalanche of problems, accusations, defense, etc.. I cannot wade through all of the nuances of each person's feelings, perceived injury, redefinitions, modifications of positions, etc. in order to properly put the matter to rest.

that is no excuse for reducing the whole issue to one of "bible good" or "bible bad." the whole thing from start to finnish revovles around the issue that there are better ways to understand inspriation than the verbal plenary model. You don't even bother to ask what they are. you just assume I am saying "bible bad." "bad man say bible bad, bonk bonk on head." there is no excuse for not even bothering to understand the basis of the argument and just lunching off against against a straw man argument that hasn't even been advanced.

People are now coming to me with complaints about various related issues and want me to take their side, to see their reasons, to address wrongs against them, etc. I've had enough. This is adding a great deal of stress in my life and I don't need it, especially lately. Therefore, I want to make it known what CARM stands for regarding this matter of inerrancy.

instead of taking such a knee jerk reaction and just saying 'It's too complecited for me to sort out so all the non inerrency people are wrong and banned." Why don't you just start witht he basics, if inerrency peopl are slandering non inerrency people, they are viiolating rules, why not eforce the rules against them too? that would have stopped a lot of it.

but to lash out with these bold prnoucements about who is a chirsian and who is a false teacher when you don't even take the time to understand the issues is just the hieght of irresponsibility. Its also just stabbing me in the back. I've been posting here ten years, I think you at least owe me a fair hearing. I'm not asking for anything that isn't just a basic right of any accussed person.

CARM's position: God inspired his prophets and apostles to write perfect Scripture that contained absolutely no error whatsoever in any way. CARM will defend this position and oppose those who attack God's word.
Unfortunately there are people who claim that God either failed, but was not able to, or chose to not ensure that his original writings didn't have any mistakes in them. I wholeheartedly denounce this error. I'm not interested in wading through a morass of ambiguous accusations and inane defenses of various positions stating that the Bible contains only myth, or is part myth, or partly inspired, mostly inspired, etc.

that's all fine and good. It's a totally indefensable position and its' stick inside the box with super gule. it's not going anywhere and it will never lead any sort of thinking sekptic to the Lord. But if it makes you feel better, fine. I am not willing to say you are not a christian because you dont' agree with me. that seems to be your once answer to any disagreement you fall into.

I know you will probably zap this as soon as it is put up. and I know you will ban me for saying it. but I'm saying it, you are irresponsible and childish and you are not fair and you are not willing to meet the menimal requirements for the sor to intellectual apologistecs to which aspire. you think it's just a matter of rattling off a bunck of quotes from C.S. Lewish Moreland so forth that makes you smart and you feel good arout it all and you never have to think about it. Thinking about is the basis of what you must do to be an apologetist and to think about it you must understand what the other guy is saying.

As far as I'm concerned Satan is using this argument and many people associated with it, to accomplish division in the body of Christ, to try and damage this Ministry, to distract people from focusing their energies on the real enemy outside the church (atheists, cults, false religions, etc), and much more. Furthermore, undoubtedly the unbelievers who see the internal bickering, or mocking the name of Christ because of the actions of those claim to follow him.

you are making division because you are not willing to listen you allow us to be slandareda and you help do the salandering beause you aren't willing to do the actual work of lisgening and thinking and debating.

I'm sorry your life is hard, this is just part of the deal. this is what you sign on for when you want to be in apologetics.

Having said that, in my opinion, those who cast doubt upon God's Word are dangerous people. They have helped to damage the faith of new believers, provided a venue of ridicule by unbelievers, and helped bring division in the body of Christ.

More slader and you have no right to say it and no basisfor saying it. you have no facts and no evidence to back you up. I have tons of email form people all the time who tell me I saved their faith. I hear from people every day who say this. you have no idea. you are just making it up because it seems to you this is what should be the case, therefore, it is the case. But it is not. By the time I get through exapliaing what my position means they believe Jesus ten times over.

These are serious problems. Apparently they don't care. Apparently they want to let us know that we are ignorant, that we are uneducated, and that we are the idolaters. I find it interesting that the ones who defend the word of God and his originals in his perfection, are attacked and maligned


Apparenlty it doesn't matter to you that your position is without any historical precident at all, and it obviously doesn't matter to you that you slander views help by esteemed christians such as Lewish and Luther and Cardnidal Dulles and others. That "they are insulting my lack of education because they are so arrogant" card is just the excuse for nothign having command of the facts.

Part of me wants to put a stop to this issue and part of me doesn't want to. Truth must be defended. But, if I silence the topic, then people will claim I can't handle it or made a bad choice, etc. Everybody is ready to complain and whine and demand that their side be seen and vindicated. Instead of turning the other cheek, they reach out and strike.

I'm sure part of you wants to put a stop to it. I'm sure if you could swing it you would live in a world where no one had the right to their on views. But you can't change the fact that skeptics see the problems you gloss over. And you can never win them over with dishonesty and pretending that the problems aren't there and then patting yourself on the back for being a bold man of God because you reuse to listen; you think being narrowmineded makes you brave.

Like I said, it seems that no matter what I do I always get attacked, and if I don't respond, I'm attacked for not responding. One thing is for sure, my position as head of this Ministry is quite difficult and sometimes it can be agitating and very stressful.

why don't you try dealing honestly with other people's points of view.

So, I believe that the position that innerancy was never the church's position is absolutely ludicrous.

show me the creed! show me the council! quote the passage from the coincil? do you not how the chruch worked historically? they did things by coucnils rememeber? show me what council adopted something called "inerrency?"

I believe that the position that innerancy amounts to idolatry, is flat out stupid. Yes, stupid.

I never said inerrency is idolotry, I said putting it on a level where it superceeds personal relationship with Jesus and teatin it as the basis of the whole gospel is idolotry.

I believe that the position that inerrancy takes the focus off of the message and onto written words, is hobwash.

what's going on right now? how did all this start? The inerrency guys wouldn't let me deal with skeptics in the way I have come to see is most effective befcause they could not get aruond the inerrency thing.

I believe that errantists who hold to orthodox Christian theology, do so inconsistently since they hold to truth while believe in the original basis for the truth was errant to begin with.

that's the kind of distortion that comes form not listening. NO one has said that the source fo thruth is inerrency. NO church, no council no creed, no one ever said it. It is only if you assume the model of verbal pleanry inspriation that mistakes and inacruacies mean a mistaken source of inspriation. If you undersatnd inspriation as filtered through human undersanding, which obviosuly it is since it is writen to us, then inaccruacies don't mean anything in terms of the nature of the source. In other words, God wasn't trying to write a memo form the office. the bible is something else it is not a rule book, a memo, an owners manuel it is not a set of ruels to live buy. It's a work of literature.

I know one thing for sure. The devil has certainly used this argument and people to bring many of us to fatigue and to cause division within the body of Christ. Well done attackers of God's word.

Of cousre you see noly your side. They salndered me, they lied about me, that's ok. waving the flag of inerrency is just a carte blanch to say anything. they even said the physical bible is God, that's ok, any blasphemy is fine as long as one wave the flag of inerrency. But it's not ideolotry, it's just repalced Chrsit as the object of worship.

the major defining statment on inerrency, the defining momement when then the idea became a doctrine, was the Chicago statment in the 19th century. That statment ends in the following:

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

* The Exposition is not printed here but can be obtained by writing us at the Oakland office: ICBI / P.O. Box 13261 / Oakland, CA 94661 / (415)-339-1064.

they have said two things here that are crucial:

(1) not buying into inerrnecy doesnt' mean you aren't a true Chrisitian

(2) living the Gospel is more important than accepting any particualr doctrine about how the Bible is inspired.

*no creed, no coucil, no doctrine, no preacher, no convention, no bible verse anywhere ever made belief in inerrency the test of Christianity.

*It is true there was no doctrine of inerrench until the nineteeth century. Matt can poo poo it but study chruch history you see its true; how do you think Martin Luther was able to question the validity of the book of James?

The issues we were discussing had to do with other methods of undersatnding revolation besides seeing it as verbal plenary inspriation. Verbal Plenary means all the verbs are inspried. But that makes the Bible like a memo from the boss intead of a literary work, which is closer to being what it is.

The bible is complex, it is not just one thing and to have a accurate view we need a complex view. skeptics know there are problems with the Bible. we can best answers these problems by being honsest about them and not trying to pawn off an artificail concept such as "a perfect God makes a perfect bible." that's what Johesph Smith said. That was Smith's big line, his gold tablets were perfect and he knew the regular bible wasnt' perfect, if you perfect in the sense of litteral meaning and mathematical accuracy.

An adequate model of how inspiration works requires a complex view of what inspiration is. none of us said the bible is wrong or its full of lies we never said it's errent."

In theoloy error means theological error. certainly no one is saying that. We are saying there some inacuracies and they are clear on the page, you can only deny them by playing "the emperor has beuatiful new closthes." The empoeror has no closthes and the skpetics know the Bible has some inconsistancies. As long as we try to make all kinds of acruracy out to be the mark of theological perfection we will have problems we can' answer. Only if we understand the message as more important that we escape the problems.

The real issue is understanding it as figurative and as employing litrary devices, because that's where 90% of the problem comes in. MOst of the problems skeptics point out have to do with these things not with truth of the Gospel but with failure to understand the use of litrary devices.


Mike (MaTriX on CARM) said...

I have told you before my friend, Matt is not an Apologist. If anything he is a theologian, and a horrid one at that. Amazing that he uses CS Lewis so out of context, and so typical of a "fundie". The fact is CS Lewis was a main player in the Post Modern Movement in Christianity, if not the main one. Show's how very ignorant he is.

My Blog is on my myspace bro.

Anonymous said...

You consider fundamentalism a bad thing? Why because it insults your desire to rage against God's holiness?

J.L. Hinman said...

why would you think I want to rage agaisnt holiness? I like holiness, but fundies think they are holy when they are legalistic. Holiness is not legalism. why don't read my arguements and think honestly about them?

carmstuff said...

Matt Slick is google bombing the internet with a string of cheap Calvinist websites. John Calvin was a murderer - that is the spiritual mentor of Matthew J. Slick.