Comments on: Satan Has No Joy

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:36:00 +0000

What I mean is that just because one does not hold to the inerrant point of view does not mean one does not hold the scriptures as having authority over us. Your definition of inerrancy suits your particular read of scripture. In other words, it seems that it's less about scripture informing your doctrines, and more about your doctrines informing scripture. You say that views of creation have nothing to do about inerrancy, but someone who holds to the inerrancy point of view would say that the age of the earth is an implication of the doctrine of inerrancy.
Your post is not about liberal theology in general. Your post is really about inerrancy and liberal theology is the way you chose to pursue that. And again, the problem is you put certain terms together as if they are one group. You may deny intending that, but when you write, “inclusivism, universalism, egalitarianism and homosexuality” what you intend to communicate is that all those are implications of liberal theology. But I take issue with that because although one may hold to the doctrine of egalitarianism, it does not mean one agrees with all the other ones, and it definately does not mean that I hold to liberal theology. You might deny that you are doing that, but that's exactly what you are doing.
You write about symptoms hoping people would believe that there is a cold. In other words, you want to equate egalitarianism with liberal theology and liberal theology with sin.
You have used Andrew Sullivan as an example of liberal theology. I suppose that means I can use the racist rhetoric of Anne Coultier, David Koresh, and David Duke as an example of conservative theology. They all believe in God and subscribe(d) to a conservative theology.
For clarification, the article says as you quote, “Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972.” Your post said that “conservatives are generally happier than liberals”.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:58:00 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:23:00 +0000

Oh and don't you think that conservatives are happier because both chambers of congress and the presidency have something to do with that? I would presume that has something to do with George Will's survey

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 16:45:00 +0000

The problem is that those who deny inerrancy do not necessarily deny its historicy or it's science. Most of us who deny inerrancy affirm everything in the bible as biblical. I don't know if you do, but I don't believe in a 6 day creation, but not sure if that's a question of inerrancy. Would it be in your definition? At the very least, inerrancy is quite the beast to define. And without a definition, it makes it difficult to “debate” its merits.
I do believe that the Bible is authoritative and not just for me and my community but for all. And unlike some of those who do not hold to the inerrancy doctrine, I reject any notion of cutting things out of the Bible as the Jesus Seminar does.
I am somewhat familiar with Andrew Sullivan's writings. While he may be articulate, and if it's the same Andrew Sullivan I'm thinking of, he does not hold any sort of authority on biblical inerrancy or even theology. I don't think you were intending that in your example, but it did seem somewhat odd to highlight his work.
Personally, I don't care for “liberal theology”. However, I think there is a wider spectrum within the evangelical world than what you intend. Jesus seminar type liberal theology doesn't work for me, nor does it really work for the church.
I appreciate your clarifications, but in the end, it seems to me that your theological and/or doctrinal leave no room for disagreement for you. No offense, but your posture in your posts seem closed (though in your comment you are a bit more conversant and open).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:27:00 +0000

EE,
I don

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:10:00 +0000

I'm not sure how and where to start with my comment. The spirit with which you write this is that of glory to God. I see that. I hear that. But you make some assumptions with which I take issue.
1. And perhaps I disagree with Francis Schaeffer. I know many good people who along with me hold the Bible and the word of God as having total and undeniable authority in our lives. We do not hold to the modern worldview of the Bible's inerrancy. Yet we trust and believe the Creator. We in no way intend to undermine him. Most of us do not hold high materialistic naturalism.
2. Though we may promote egalitarianism, we denounce and stand firm against sins of homosexuality and universalism.
You're all over the place in this post–which is so hard to know how to respond to it. Just as I said at the start of this comment, I believe you are genuine and the glory you give to God is noteworthy. However, you make some strong statements and (attacks) against anyone who does not hold your theological view. I will quote you as I end this comment: