Thursday, September 18, 2014

IMG_3535.JPGStan Williams posed the question “What good is an infallible Bible without an infallible teacher?

I RESPONDED:

The NT never claims infallibly for itself or its Table of Contents. Without an authoritative Church and without the Infallible Interpreter we don’t even have an infallible book.

STAN WILLIAMS WROTE:

I have this progression written:
· Fallible men wrote the infallible Scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit;

· Fallible men also infallibly selected which writings were to be included in the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit;

· Fallible men, again, through the Holy Spirit, infallibly interpret the Scriptures,

· Fallible men, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit bind and loose things on earth; and

· Fallible men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forgive and retain sin.

Interesting that Protestants claim the first bullet point but sidestep the rest, as if (Mary Kochan just wrote), as if the H.S. spoke on his own and not through men.

AL KRESTA RESPONDED:

I think the Protestant scholar would say that the New Testament is infallible and is an objective source of knowledge about God. Our interpretations of it, like our interpretations of nature, can be exploratory, not final, provisional. We study God’s word and God’s world. With both, our studies never exhaust the object of our study and our study is always provisional.

The problem then becomes do I need to know infallible truth to be saved? If so, where do I find it if your interpretation of the proposed infallible NT is provisional, exploratory and subject to revision?

I think they would then respond that on the important matters like salvation we know enough to be saved.
My response would be, fine. Is that an infallible knowledge of salvation or a provisional knowledge of salvation?

If his response is an infallible knowledge of salvation I would say that he has contradicted himself because he said his interpretations are always provisional and subject to revision. So why should I take his interpretation of salvation to be infallible when other Protestant scholars require different interpretations of salvation. The Churches of Christ require baptism, Quakers have no sacraments, Liberal Protestants are often universalists and require nothing more than recognizing that you are already saved. Wesleyan scholars seem to expect a second work of grace to precede salvation (I am uncertain about this last one).

If his response is that we don’t need infallible knowledge to be saved, I would say, “Then why are you insisting that the NT is infallible. It seems pointless given that you have no infallible interpretation of it. So we are back to where we started.”

{ 5 comments }