What Arminians Believe About Innerrancy

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Monergist, Apr 30, 2005.

  1. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's another quote from Arminian J.K. Grider, found in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology:

    Here again, although these words are shocking to me, I believe that he is being consistent and honest while affirming Arminian beliefs. The problem is the Arminian objection to God overriding the 'free-will' of man. Since scripture was written by human authors, Arminianism is forced to allow for the possiblity that the authors of their own 'free-will' chose to insert their own opinions in writing the scripture. God must allow 'free-will' and as human beings the authors could have exercised that free will in adding to or changing what God revealed, or by being in error on some point, which God would have been 'unable' to corect without violating some one's 'free-will.'
     
  2. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here again, although these words are shocking to me, I believe that he is being consistent and honest while affirming Arminian beliefs. The problem is the Arminian objection to God overriding the 'free-will' of man. Since scripture was written by human authors, Arminianism is forced to allow for the possiblity that the authors of their own 'free-will' chose to insert their own opinions in writing the scripture. God must allow 'free-will' and as human beings the authors could have exercised that free will in adding to or changing what God revealed, or by being in error on some point, which God would have been 'unable' to corect without violating some one's 'free-will.' </font>[/QUOTE]Baker's Dictionary is written by Calvinists, and they try to show that the views of a few Arminians, like Clarke Pinnock represent the view by all Arminians. This is gross misrepresentation of the truth, adn typical of Calvinistic twisting of the facts.
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article cited was written by an Arminian. Rather than making accusations of "misrepresentation" and "twisting" why don't you check it out for yourself?
     
  5. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article cited was written by an Arminian. Rather than making accusations of "misrepresentation" and "twisting" why don't you check it out for yourself? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, its very simple. There are many "kinds" of Arminians, and the guy who wrote this article is one of those who represents not what Jacob Arminius, or John Calvin believes. So, it does not really matter what he says, as he does NOT speak for all, or even the majority. You posting is quite pointless, unless, of course there is a purpose for you to have posted it.

    I have already shown what Dr Warfield believed. Do you conclude that this views is held by all Calvinists? I think that your motives in this post is to give the wrong impression of what those who are not Calvinists believe. Shame on you.
     
  6. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does Warfield deny inerrancy? NO

    Does he use a defective method to arrive at his conclusions? Probably, in fact I disagree (though I'm no scholar) with his rationalistic method. The debate about apologetical method continues in Reformed circles; I think that the Presuppostional approach is the most valid.

    But I ask you, are you accusing Warfield of wavering on the doctrine of inerrancy? If so, it is you sir who is misrepresenting and twisting the facts. You have taken it upon yourself to judge my motives and shame me. If I am misrepresenting, I will accept that shame. But the burden of proof lies with you.

    So, it would be helpful here if you will show how Warfield denied inerrancy, as you seem to strongly suggest.
     
  7. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does Warfield deny inerrancy? NO

    Does he use a defective method to arrive at his conclusions? Probably, in fact I disagree (though I'm no scholar) with his rationalistic method. The debate about apologetical method continues in Reformed circles; I think that the Presuppostional approach is the most valid.

    But I ask you, are you accusing Warfield of wavering on the doctrine of inerrancy? If so, it is you sir who is misrepresenting and twisting the facts. You have taken it upon yourself to judge my motives and shame me. If I am misrepresenting, I will accept that shame. But the burden of proof lies with you.

    So, it would be helpful here if you will show how Warfield denied inerrancy, as you seem to strongly suggest.
    </font>[/QUOTE]No, I am NOT accusing Warfield of anything. In fact I have a very high regard for him as a scholar, even though his views on the Bible are indeed sadly unorthodox.

    I am pointing out that you cannot simply go around and post what one Arminian has to say on a subject, and then place it under the very misleading title, "What Arminians Believe about Inerrancy" This suggests to anyone, that the OP that you have given is the view of all Arminians, which is completely untrue.

    I showed you the view of Dr Warfield on the Inspiration of Scripture, as asked if it would be fair to say that his view, as an important Calvinist, is that which is held by all Calvinists?

    I ask again, what is the purpose of this post? The way you have given the single statement on "Inerrancy" as found in one book, and then supposed by your title to be the view of all Arminians, is indeed dishonest.
     
  8. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also Monergist, you own words in the OP, are a complete distortion of the facts. Who do you think that you are, to say that the view of J.K. Grider, "affirms Arminian beliefs"?

    [ April 30, 2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  9. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I missing something here? Did you even bother to read the article that you linked?

    I showed you the view of Dr Warfield on the Inspiration of Scripture, as asked if it would be fair to say that his view, as an important Calvinist, is that which is held by all Calvinists?

    (See question above); What exactly in his view on the Bible IS UNORTHODOX?


    I ask again, what is the purpose of this post? The way you have given the single statement on "Inerrancy" as found in one book, and then supposed by your title to be the view of all Arminians, is indeed dishonest.

    My point is that the honest arminian has a hard time defending the inerrancy of scripture while holding to a view that the free-will of man neccessarily obligates God not to enforce His will upon man.

    You have chosen to defend your position by launching a personal attack on my motives. You would do better to defend your postion by showing how (Biblically) one does not exclude the other.
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  10. padredurand

    padredurand
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    20
    ...or the 1689 London Confession, or the 2000 BF&M.......

    Why would Arminian beliefs about inerrancy be any different than Calvinists?
     
  11. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Monergist, for starters, Dr Warfields statement:

    "Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. It is the last and crowning fact as to the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, before we prove them inspired."

    Warfield here is more interested in getting the "facts" as taught in Scripture "right", before he even considers the issue of whether they are inspired. Are you saying this is the Orthodox position?

    Secondly, what has the "free will" of man got to do with the inspiration of Scripture? It seems that you do not understand what Inspiration is. The time when ther writers of the 66 books were writing, God the Holy Spirit so inspired them, that what they wrote was exactly what God wanted us to have. I cannot see any problem in the "free will" issue with this. As if to say that because of mans "free will", they would not have wanted to do the will of God. This is nonsense. You have no basis for your argument here.
     
  12. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've already stated that I believe that Warfield's approach as presented in this article is flawed.

    I live in a Northeastern Tennessee city named Kingsport. To go to Knoxville using the best approach, a direct approach would take about 1 1/2 hours. I could take alternate routes that would get me there, though it might take 3 1/2 weeks. It wouldn't make me 'unorthodox' neccessarily-- it would just mean that I was using a flawed approach. However, if I instructed others that my 'round-about' approach to Knoxville was indeed the best way to get there, then certainly my method would be subject to criticism (as Warfield's is). Yet it could never be honestly argued that Knoxville was not my intended target. Warfield's 'target' was Biblical innerrancy, though he used a flawed approach to get there.

    Warfield's 'approach' is no different from any other apologist who uses empirical data (scientific, historical, archeological, mathematical, etc) to 'prove' that the Bible is true. Have you ever heard of a book called " Evidence That Demands a Verdict?" That's taking an 'evidentialist' approach, one that I believe is flawed. Whether the starting point is 'evidence' or 'rational thought' it is, in my opinion flawed. Yet there are many apologists, both Calvinistic & Arminian who use this approach. It should be challenged, I agree, but that is not the issue at hand here.

    But the important thing is, Warfield NEVER denied the innerrancy of scripture, rather he defended it vigourously. As a matter of fact, I honestly do not know of one single Calvinist who denies the Bible's innerrancy. If there is one, maybe you can enlighten me. But we both know of myriads of self-proclaimed Armininians who do in fact deny that that the BIble is inerrant. Should we not wonder why this is so? Should we not try and determine what in their theology leads to such a conclusion.

    I posted the quote from an Armininian because I found it shocking, yet consistent with his theology. I wish that you or someone would put forth a convincing argument that somehow shows that God could have preserved both the free-will of the authors of scripture and the integrity of what they wrote.

    Maybe you do not understand what I am getting at, and maybe its because I'm failing to express myself clearly, but questioning my motives here really isn't neccessary.

    [ April 30, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Monergist ]
     
  13. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Monergist, I don't think that you understand Warfield's position on Inspiration, as you assume that his "'approach' is no different from any other apologist". Yes, I have read Josh McDowalls, "Evidence", but no where does Josh take the same view as Warfield.

    I question your motives here, because you say that you found what one Arminian says on Scripture as "shocking", then why did you title is post, "What Arminians Believe about Inerrancy", and not "J.K. Grider view on Scripture"? It is evident from this that you sought to class all Arminians together with this misleading title.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Arminian tradition has been a long part of the tradition which...is interested in the Bible's authority and infallibility, and expresses confidence that Scripture is innerrant on matters of faith and practice
    ==&gt; while remaining open on possible mathematical, historical, or geographical errors. Its scholars in general do not believe that Harold Lindsell correctly interprets the long Christian tradition on scripture in such works as The Battle for the Bible, when he says that until about 150 years ago Christians in general believed in the total innerrancy of Scripture.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First of all you are just "making up Arminianism" as it suits your fancy rather than quoting anything apart from the first quote. Your monologue that followed - is simply speculation. (But of course you have free will to make such a choice).

    The real question is what is "inspiration" from a Calvinist POV vs an Arminian POV.

    In many churches both groups view it as "the same mechanism". That is -- no difference in many Baptist churches for how inspiritation is thought of - whether the member is Calvinist or Arminian.

    Verbal inspiration, or God=breathed-thought inspiration -- or mechanical autographic inspiration etc.

    I believe in thought inspiration but I do not think that all Arminians take that same mode "just because they are Arminian". I think there are diverse views WITHIN the Arminian groups on this subject as well as in the various Calvinist groups.

    Case in point - according to the Gospel accounts - what does the Father say about the Son at Christ's baptism?

    Between Matthew and Mark which account is word-for-word "correct"? What about the sentence from God the Father in Matt 17:5 vs Mark 9:7 about Christ? Which one is word-for-word correct?

    From the point of theology, doctrine and thought - they both are infallible and correct. But if you are looking for the word-perfect audio version ---

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. padredurand

    padredurand
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    20
    My name is Dwayne and I live in New York. I strongly dislike the New York Yankees. Therefore we conclude that all New Yorkers strongly dislike the New York Yankees.

    Grider is an Arminian. Grider holds a inspired purpose POV and not a verbal, plenary inspired view therefore we conclude that all Arminians are just like Grider.

    The only conclusion I could draw is that Grider is in error about inspiration and that some may think I'm in error about the Yankees.
     
  16. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that mean that you don't watch the Yankee's games?
     
  17. padredurand

    padredurand
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    20
    Only with morbid curiosity. Kinda like trying not to look driving by a car wreck.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The OP does say "In general" arminians believe a certain way. Make sure you understand that he is making a claim about the general view associated with arminianism. He is probably right, and taht statement could be said about many groups, probably including calvinists.

    I don't see any real issue here. This thread seems to be a rabbit trail.
     
  19. padredurand

    padredurand
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    20
    Which, at this juncture Pastor Larry, is more entertaining than watching the Yankees. :D
     
  20. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it is possible for man to "insert their own opinions in writing", it is just as possible for CALVIN to have done the same!!
     

Share This Page

Loading...