Definitions do matter but it is often hard to set authoritative ones owing to the fact that they evolve so quickly.

Nevertheless I tried to propose the following ones.

I defined what a Christian is, what makes up a progressive Christian and I tried to lay out the differences between fundamentalist, conservative and progressive Evangelicals.

Since these are extremely complex topics, I find it healthy to ask the opinions other Christians have on my definitions.

I would be very glad to learn your critical thoughts on this.

Lovely greetings from Europe.

Another question: what are you according to these definitions?

Hi Marc,
I guess my first question is: how do you define “inerrant” in regards to the Bible? As you know, there are quite a few people who define themselves as evangelicals and believe the Bible is inerrant but are quite “progressive”. They may be defining “inerrant” differently than you do. (I’m thinking Randal Rauser and Peter Enns here).

Historically, the word “Christians” was use at Antioch to denote those people who were disciples (pupils) of Jesus the Messiah.

… and when [Barnabus] had found [Paul], he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians. (Acts 11:26)

Acelforbes:

Conservative definition of inerrancy: everything a human author of Scripture intended is without error.

Progressive definition of inerrancy: everything God intended to be within the Bible is without error.

By the way I offered a criticism of Randal Rauser’s version of inerrancy:

lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/biblical-inspiration-and-randal-rauser/

Even if it is much more sophisticated, it still fall shorts.

Well, Son of Lothar, I think this is also what Peter Enns means by an innerrant Bible and is a view I think I hold as well. I can see the problem with the “terror texts” but I think that’s largely because of problems with commonly used hermeneutics and not necessarily due to the texts alone. Have you read any of Peter Enns’s books? I’d be interested to see if you can see a way to reconcile “inerrancy” with the Bible containing such very human texts after reading some of his work. I’ve found it very helpful. I do have Thom Stark’s *The Human Faces of God *and it’s up next after I finish Enns’s The Evolution of Adam.

What do you mean by “terror texts”? Are you referring to those instances where God slaughtered peoples wholescale, i.e. men, women, and children? I

Hi Dondi,

This is from Lotharson’s blog:

I think he is referring to the Canaanite genocide texts primarily but perhaps ‘the flood’ and some other passages as well…

I have some thoughts on this HERE.

Yes, I was actually thinking that while many don’t seem to mind the story of the Flood, they seem a bit squeamish when it comes to the Canaanite genocide. which is befuddling since the Flood represented a much wider scale of death and destruction.

I don’t see much difference between the two cases, BTW. If the purpose of the Flood was to preserve the human race, in light of the wickedness that prevailed leading up to the Flood, then the purpose of the slaughter of the Canaanites was to preserve the nation of Israel, through which God purposed to bless all the nations of the world as promised to Abraham, and ultimately fulfilled in Christ. I don’t necessarily see what the problem is.

I had a student, 8th grader, ask me the other day if I was a Christian. My response to him was what difference did it make if he couldn’t tell?

Of course, the broader question in the area of inerrancy is not how many inconsistancies we can find (i.e. differences in the Gospel accounts), or if God really did commit genocide, but rather what is the message that is being presented to us? The Bible tells us a story. A story that speaks of the relationship between God and man.

Whether you believe in a literal Creation account or evolution, it doesn’t have much bearing on the fact that the story of the Fall tells about the schism in the relationship between man and God. You don’t have to be a literalist to see that. The story goes that God made man (whether through special creation or evolution) to commune with and interact with that creation. And somewhere along the way, that relationship got tarnished. And I can pick that up even if I see the story as allegorical. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represents our selfish-interest, because of the Law attached to it. All things were permissable for the man and woman to enjoy, except when man placed something ahead of his relationship with God (in this case, represented by the Forbidden Fruit - the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life apart from God). The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents the Law, for it is something that 1) God does not wish for us and is an established boundary for our good and 2) cannot be kept anyway for we cannot sustain ourselves without the life of God. The Tree of Life represents Grace, that is only found if the life of Christ; the life of God, which CAN sustain us, through the operation of the Holy Spirit as we yield to Him. It is about living the life of God in us apart from the Law, yet by faith fulfilling the Law through Grace.

I can believe in evolution and still bring that concept to light, even if there were no literal Adam and Eve. In a way, we are our own Adam and Eve, rebelling against God with our own selfish-interest. We died to God in our selfish-interests.

Revelation, then, must be consistent throughout scripture that conveys the first concepts of the relationship between God and man, and the remedy for reconciliation. If that is the basic truth that needs to be conveyed, then the Scriptures have accomplished that. That message is consistent all the way through.

On the other hand, we must also be careful of how much we would consider allegory, for if we conclude that the story of Jesus is allegorical, then nothing matters anyway if Christ isn’t risen indeed. The truth of the matter is that Chrisianity is a historically-driven faith. So just how much are we willing to believe, yet retain enough of historical truth to sustain our faith?

I just saw Dondi’s very good post, after I had written the following.

The problem seems to be one of definition, in some ways - which use of ‘inerrant’ is one referring to? And do you mean “inspired”, not ‘inerrant’?
“Inerrant” usage:

1. There are no factual errors in the Bible - no dates were mis-remembered, no names mis-spelled, no copyist’s errors were made? No. I guess a few people hold to that, not many.
2. There are no errors in what the Bible clearly TEACHES? Doctrinal inerrancy? The view held by many able theologians. My position also. But is everything the bible says TEACHING? No. There are stories, lists, poetry, prophecies, all sorts of interesting literary genres.

But I think some folks are really speaking incorrectly about ‘inspiration’, and calling it 'inerrancy".
Inspiration on this simple level:

1. Every word in the Bible is just as if spoken by God? The writers of the Bible were ‘channeling’? No. The importance of this mistake is one of interpretation - if you’d read my little piece on Psalm 137 I think you would agree that a psalmist took the time to create a bit of Jewish poetry that reflected, at the end of the psalm, a desire for revenge. It was the PSALMIST speaking, not God!!!

The false claim is that because a psalmist wrote about baby-head bashing, that God also feels that way.

2. The Noah story needs a longer post with more extensive interpretation. But just starting with Coverdale’s awarenesses would be a step in the right direction.

I think one of the better definitions I’ve seen of inerrancy is, (from both progressive and “semi-progressive” believers) “The Bible is true in all that it intends to teach”.

But “Christian” was a word first coined not by the church, but by those outside it as an identifying label. These days, it has come to be identified with lots of ideas and attitudes I no longer agree with, so I do not self-identify as a Christian.

I guess I would simply refer to myself as a follower of Christ to be more specific, or to be less specific, as “spiritual but not religious”.

What does it mean to be religious, as opposed to spiritual?

For me it has meant… keeping my faith but loosing my religion. That’s another way of saying I came to the conclusion I didn’t need “church attendance” to validate my faith.

For me spirituality focuses more on transformation. When I’m outside my head and not reasoning or arguing about God faith arises. I’m in the present moment and more peaceful and loving.

1 Peter 4:14-16 ESV

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

Every once in a while this question seems to come up with friends and people I hang out with. It naturally occurs when you are rethinking every belief. When I first came to Christ I didn’t wish to call myself Christian, because I thought the name was beyond tarnished. So many with the name have done terrible things in that name. But one day as I reread Peters first epistle I came across this interesting passage. From what is written above what can we figure being a Christian is about?

1. Suffering for Christ’s sake, out of love for Him, holding to Him through all trials and testing, being willing to suffer insults and reproach for His name. To be a Christian is to bear the name of Christ, and unless you look like Him, living a life of self-denial and cross-bearing, unless you live as a disciple, then you cannot be considered a “Christian”. A Christian is just that a “little Christ”.

2. He is not a murderer, thief, evildoer, or even troublemaker. It is not for these things he suffers insults for, they do not define his identity, Christ does. When insulted he does not insult in return, when persecuted he does not give place for vengeance. Though he may, like his Lord, call the world to repentance, telling them of their evil works, he never repays evil for evil, but overcomes evil with good.

3. The Spirit of glory and God rest upon the Christian. Like his Lord before him, though weak and dependent upon God for life and strength, he is empowered by the Holy Spirit to stand firm in the truth, loving supernaturally without any fear. Though not sparing in words of correction, he is not legalistic like the Pharisees, but filled with the Spirit of the Lord and with power, and His glory.

4. He glorifies God in the name “Christian”, meaning God is not ashamed by his actions or words. The Christians are reflections of Christ, sufferers for His name. Though hated by the world as Christ was, a Christian pleases the heart of the Father, because he does not seek the praise of man, but in everything looks to please God.

So in a nutshell, a Christian is someone known by their actions and words, their life and love, moreso than just their mental assent to a rota of beliefs. Their beliefs are foundational (the disciples believe the words of their Master and Teacher), but as Jesus said “The disciple when fully trained will look like their teacher” Christ is now our teacher through the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is conforming us to the image of the Son. That is a Christian, someone being made into a “little Christ”, one who will glorify the Father in everything they say and do.

Incidentally Peter Enns completely gave up the label inerrancy:

patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/ … -seminary/

I shall definitely read his books.