Featured Study of Systematic Theology

I meant "liberal" in the sense of he would see the Bible as NOT being fully inerrant/infallible, as but as having artially word of God, would have been part of the higher critical thought common if that time!

Multiple sources genesis, various prophets etc, he would hold to history of the OT as pretty valid, but would not see it as a conservative one does!

 

Well is that true Tom? Are you so entrenched in a specific group think that you cannot even venture an honest evaluation of your own agenda?

MorseOp might be right ....all I see out of you is contentious commentary. Hardly edifying!

 

Would like to know why is holding to a fully inerrant and infallible bible would be seen as being a bad thing on a baptist board?

 

It depends on what you mean by "fully inerrant and infallible bible." The Bible is without error in the original autographs. Translations of the original autographs have some textual variances. There are debates about the last chapter of Mark by many textual scholars. The important thing is that no biblical doctrine is contradicted by any textual variant or even a redaction error. The Bible is wholly trustworthy - infallible. The problem comes when some people dodge serious debate by saying, "I take the Bible literally." What does that mean? When Jesus says He is the bread of life, are we to take it to mean that he is actually a loaf of bread? When Jesus is referred to as the "Lion of the tribe of Judah", is He actually a four legged lion? Of course not! It is the meaning of the Bible, the truth expressed, that is literal.

Let me give you an example. Have you ever heard someone say, when speaking about prayer, "wherever two or three are gathered, He is there"? So many Christians take that passage literally and think that it pertains to Jesus being present when "two or three" are gathered. Does that mean He's not there when only one is gathered? How about four or more? And what if the passage has absolutely nothing to do with prayer? Lets take a look:

This passage is not about prayer, it is about church discipline. Verses 19 & 20 have to do with agreeing in the matter of church discipline. But how many people take verse 20 out of context and think it has to do with Christians praying? Guess what? I used to believe that until a godly and patient man explained to me my error.

Just something to think about.