What is Open Theism position on inerrancy of scripture?

[Cygnus]

The study of the Bible is central to Christianity and our understanding of God and the world we live in.
From my studies it is evident that there is uniform agreement within the broad spectrum of the Christian community that the original autographs (manuscripts) were inerrant and infallible being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There is some disagreement among many Christians whether or not the Bible we have in our hands today can reliably be considered inerrant and infallible.
What is the position of the Open Theism community regards this pivotal issue?

 

[Right Divider]

The study of the Bible is central to Christianity and our understanding of God and the world we live in.
From my studies it is evident that there is uniform agreement within the broad spectrum of the Christian community that the original autographs (manuscripts) were inerrant and infallible being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There is some disagreement among many Christians whether or not the Bible we have in our hands today can reliably be considered inerrant and infallible.
What is the position of the Open Theism community regards this pivotal issue?

Open Theism is not about having a "position" on all issues.
It is about one specific issue: from https://opentheism.org

Because God is Free the Future Must be Open​

​

​

Ultimately, open theism is not based on man's freedom but on God's freedom. Open theism is the Christian doctrine that the future is not settled but open because God is alive, eternally free, and inexhaustibly creative. Although this undeniable truth is virtual heresy to many Calvinist and Arminian theologians, regardless, open theists affirm the obvious, that God is able to think new thoughts. And He can write new songs. And if He so desires He could design new butterflies too.​

 

[Cygnus]

Open Theism is not about having a "position" on all issues.
It is about one specific issue:
That may be so, as a generalisation, and only acceptable on those grounds.
Nevertheless, that generalisation, does not address the question raised by the OP regarding inerrancy and infallibility of scripture.

Ultimately, open theism is not based on man's freedom but on God's freedom. Open theism is the Christian doctrine that the future is not settled but open because God is alive, eternally free, and inexhaustibly creative. Although this undeniable truth is virtual heresy to many Calvinist and Arminian theologians, regardless, open theists affirm the obvious, that God is able to think new thoughts. And He can write new songs. And if He so desires He could design new butterflies too.
This concise introduction does not address the question in the OP.

But I will digress briefly to address the claim made.

This catch all phrase does seem to present difficulties for settle view proponents, but that is not necessarily so, and I think I am able to develop a response which will negate the claim made in this concise introduction to Open Theism, which I will begin work on and introduce in a dedicated thread.

 

[Right Divider]

Open Theism is not about having a "position" on all issues.
It is about one specific issue:
That may be so, as a generalisation, and only acceptable on those grounds.
Nevertheless, that generalisation, does not address the question raised by the OP regarding inerrancy and infallibility of scripture.

Again... that is because your question is invalid. Open Theism is NOT a "systematic theology". It is about ONE specific topic.

Ultimately, open theism is not based on man's freedom but on God's freedom. Open theism is the Christian doctrine that the future is not settled but open because God is alive, eternally free, and inexhaustibly creative. Although this undeniable truth is virtual heresy to many Calvinist and Arminian theologians, regardless, open theists affirm the obvious, that God is able to think new thoughts. And He can write new songs. And if He so desires He could design new butterflies too.
This concise introduction does not address the question in the OP.

Again... that is because your question is invalid.

But I will digress briefly to address the claim made.

This catch all phrase does seem to present difficulties for settle view proponents, but that is not necessarily so, and I think I am able to develop a response which will negate the claim made in this concise introduction to Open Theism, which I will begin work on and introduce in a dedicated thread.

We are so happy for you.

 

[Cygnus]

Again... that is because your question is invalid. Open Theism is NOT a "systematic theology". It is about ONE specific topic.
In your opinion what would be the primary source from which this one specific topic was derived and developed from?

 

[Right Divider]

Again... that is because your question is invalid. Open Theism is NOT a "systematic theology". It is about ONE specific topic.
In your opinion what would be the primary source from which this one specific topic was derived and developed from?

Please learn to use the "Reply" function.

The scripture... of course.

 

[Cygnus]

The scripture... of course.

In your opinion can the Bible we have in our hands today be reliably considered inerrant and infallible?

 

[Right Divider]

In your opinion can the Bible we have in our hands today be reliably considered inerrant and infallible?

It depends on what is meant by those terms.

 

[Cygnus]

It depends on what is meant by those terms.

Would you feel comfortable in providing a definition of some kind that is acceptable to you regards those 2 terms?

 

[Right Divider]

Would you feel comfortable in providing a definition of some kind that is acceptable to you regards those 2 terms?

You brought them up, you define them.

 

[Cygnus]

You brought them up, you define them.

In regards the scriptures; inerrant/inerrancy means that the scriptures do not affirm any errors, and infallible/infallibility means the scriptures are incapable of erring.

 

[Right Divider]

In regards the scriptures; inerrant/inerrancy means that the scriptures do not affirm any errors, and infallible/infallibility means the scriptures are incapable of erring.

OK, and how is this relevant to Open Theism?

Open Theism makes no claims about that topic.

Open Theism is about ONE thing and ONLY one thing... and it's NOT the inerrancy of scripture.

 

[Cygnus]

OK, and how is this relevant to Open Theism?

It is relevant in this regard, you agreed that the primary source from which this one specific topic was derived and developed from was - “The scripture... of course."

Open Theism makes no claims about that topic.

I understand, that there is no formal codified statement of fundamental doctrinal beliefs (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith) within the open theist community which specifically clarifies the subject matter of the OP… hence my enquiry.

Therefore, as an individual advocate for open theism yourself, and considering the definition I have provided regards the meaning of inerrant and infallibility.

In your opinion can the Bible we have in our hands today be reliably considered inerrant and infallible?

Open Theism is about ONE thing and ONLY one thing... and it's NOT the inerrancy of scripture.

That may be so, however, because the primary source of that one specific topic is the scriptures, the veracity of the scriptures must be clarified and defined with precision.

That is fundamental and an unavoidable fact.

 

[Right Divider]

It is relevant in this regard, you agreed that the primary source from which this one specific topic was derived and developed from was - “The scripture... of course."

Yes, Open Theism relies on scripture (as any doctrines of God must).

I understand, that there is no formal codified statement of fundamental doctrinal beliefs (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith) within the open theist community which specifically clarifies the subject matter of the OP… hence my enquiry.

Therefore, as an individual advocate for open theism yourself, and considering the definition I have provided regards the meaning of inerrant and infallibility.

In your opinion can the Bible we have in our hands today be reliably considered inerrant and infallible?

It is certainly reliable and adequate.

That may be so, however, because the primary source of that one specific topic is the scriptures, the veracity of the scriptures must be clarified and defined with precision.

That is fundamental and an unavoidable fact.

The original manuscripts were most certainly error free and perfect.
What we have today has certain copying errors, etc. But nothing that affects the reliability or accuracy of the message.

@JudgeRightly can further enlighten you on that subject, as he is more knowledgeable than I on that topic.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes, Open Theism relies on scripture (as any doctrines of God must).

Agreed

It is certainly reliable and adequate.

I hope I am not coming across as needlessly pedantic, definitely not my intention, but I consider it of fundamental importance to clarify, with precision, the veracity of scripture, as it is the primary source of our knowledge of God.

Therefore, and considering the definitions I have provided, I have modified my previous question to see if we are in agreement on this pivotal issue.

In your opinion is the Bible we have today inerrant and infallible?

The original manuscripts were most certainly error free and perfect.
What we have today has certain copying errors, etc. But nothing that affects the reliability or accuracy of the message

I am seeking further clarification from you, and I believe your response to the question in the previous section above will help bring some refinement to this pivotal issue concerning the specific matters you mention here.

 

[Derf]

Agreed

I hope I am not coming across as needlessly pedantic, definitely not my intention, but I consider it of fundamental importance to clarify, with precision, the veracity of scripture, as it is the primary source of our knowledge of God.

Therefore, and considering the definitions I have provided, I have modified my previous question to see if we are in agreement on this pivotal issue.

In your opinion is the Bible we have today inerrant and infallible?

I am seeking further clarification from you, and I believe your response to the question in the previous section above will help bring some refinement to this pivotal issue concerning the specific matters you mention here.

@Right Divider answered pretty clearly, and while we differ on a number of things, I'm at a loss to know how he could have made it any clearer. Can you explain what needs clarifying?

 

[Cygnus]

@Right Divider answered pretty clearly, and while we differ on a number of things, I'm at a loss to know how he could have made it any clearer. Can you explain what needs clarifying?

The definitions I have provided for inerrant and infallible are succinct and precise. I found his initial response somewhat vague and imprecise.
On reflection I thought, perhaps, that my original question to which he responded lacked a bit of precision itself and so may have contributed to what I perceived as a somewhat vague and imprecise response.
I have in mind my use of this portion of my original question - “...can the Bible be…reliably considered...”

I hope that helps to clarify my intent in presenting the question again but in a more precise manner.

 

[Right Divider]

In your opinion is the Bible we have today inerrant and infallible?

Which one?

 

[Cygnus]

Which one?

The bible you use personally, and from which you would quote from, in defending open theism on this forum.

 

[Right Divider]

The bible you use personally, and from which you would quote from, in defending open theism on this forum.

No, it is not inerrant. But it is still reliable and authoritative.

P.S. I don't believe that I have ever quoted any scripture in support of Open Theism on this forum. I may have simply passed on what those on the Open Theism website have posted.

https://opentheism.org/verses