(December 19, 2017 at 5:17 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:(December 19, 2017 at 2:49 pm)alpha male Wrote: Peter notes that Paul's letters are Scripture. Combined with the Timothy passage, you get inerrancy for Paul at least.
You read the Bible with legal precision, but it wasn't written that way. When Paul wrote his epistles, his primary intent was to communicate with his various parishes concerning practical as well as spiritual matters. If he had known that his letters would some day be considered the "Word of God," he might have been more careful about what he said.
Quote:I don't subscribe to the notion that apostles were inerrant 24/7. Inerrancy only refers to Scripture, as you should see from the Timothy passage.
Guidance from the Spirit doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing thing.
True. But even if you carefully read the gospels and accept that Peter was the rock or foundation of the church, that still doesn't get you to inerrancy to begin with. "Peter is the rock" doesn't inherently mean that "everything Peter writes is inerrant." That is a stretch... but it seems as though this sketchy conclusion begins the journey to accepting your doctrine.
Vague interpolations get you to accept the doctrine of inerrancy-- then, once you accept the doctrine, the selfsame nebulous verses that you used to arrive at inerrancy become themselves inerrant. The whole thing is dizzyingly circular. Without conceding any of your own beliefs, you can at least see where I'm coming from, right?
Quote:I really can't discuss it with you though when you don't read up on it, and just say you trust modern scholars who hold that view.
I see nothing wrong with deferring to the judgment of those who have made it their life's work to analyze a text.
I wonder how much Paul spent on postage? And how did Peter get duplicate copies of Paul's international letters?
