Theological Word of the Day

If you’re a fan of the Philosophy Word of the Day, you may also enjoy the Theological Word of the Day by Reclaiming the Mind Ministries.

Today’s word is “inerrancy.”

Belief among many conservative Christians that the Bible does not contain any errors, historical, scientific, or otherwise. Although the term was not employed much until the twentieth century, upon the rise of biblical criticism, inerrantists would argue that this designation became a necessary line of demarcation between liberals and conservative Christians. Many difficulties arise when defining inerrancy as one’s hermeneutic (method of interpreting the Scripture) becomes an issue. Some would hold to a more literal hermeneutic and define inerrancy accordingly. Others would opt for a less definite hermeneutic and describe themselves as “reasoned inerrantists,” believing that the Bible is true in whatever it is attempting to communicate, but believing that what the Bible intends to communicate is often difficult to understand.

See here for articles on “reasoned inerrancy.”

You can subscribe here by email or RSS, and a widget is available to add the daily theological word to your blog or website.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bookmark and Share

4 thoughts on “Theological Word of the Day

  1. Been enjoying the Theological Word of the Day for at least a year now. It’s been very useful. Have you considered setting up a separate feed for the Philosophy Word of the Day like that?

    • Hi Toby,
      Thanks for that suggestion. I have thought about it, and might do it in the future. Since I believe that at least a portion of those who are interested in the philosophy word of the day aren’t Christians, I’d like to have some of the other content visible to them while they’re checking out the philosophy word. Hopefully we can get some dialogue going on some of these issues we’re all interested in.
      I’ll keep the idea in mind, though.

  2. What exactly is theology?

    Is it really in any sense useful?

    Does it have anything to do with the Living God Who IS Alive as quite literally everything.

    Jesus was not a theologian. Nor were the various people who wrote the books of the Bible–both Old and New Testament.

    With rare exception none of the Illuminated Saints in either the Catholic and Orthodox Traditions were theologians.

    So too in the Eastern Traditions. None of their Sacred Scriptures were written by theologians. Neither were any of their Illuminated Saints, Mystics or Yogis, theologians.

    All of theology, just like philosophy and words altogether, and ordinary everyday language IS brain created language games.

    The word “God” is an object in this brain created language game. To presume to pursue religious “truth” by the effort to create a whole theology is really to pursue and create a protective circle around ones self.

    The “I” is the centre pole and the “God” of all language. “I” create the universe of thoughts, and God is thus never more than one of many words or things within it.

    Everything that the “I” creates is a form of “I”-dolatry.

    “I” is the primary “I”-dol.

    All of the God ideas thus created are idols which belie the Truth, and even quite deliberately prevent the silent wordless contemplation of the Truth that is always beyond and prior to whatever you may think about IT.

    Reality does not think.

    God or The Divine Reality is the indivisible integrity of all things, even of ones presumed self.

    The use of language, however seemingly sophisticated, or full of quotes from the Scriptures, is not the way to find and thus silently worship or contemplate the Divine Reality.

    Only conscious heart-centered ecstatic surrender of self is the way to The Divine, and the simultaneous understanding of The Divine.

    • Hi John,

      Thanks for taking the time to leave some thoughtful comments. You obviously have an interest in philosophy and religion, so I’m glad you visited my blog.

      You make some interesting points, but I’m not sure your beliefs all cohere well with each other — which is necessary to have a rational and consistent worldview. The main issue that stands out for me is that you seem to take a very skeptical position on our ability to know reality (I think I hear some echoes of The Matrix, and of Wittgenstein with “language games”), but at the same time you’re making a lot of statements about reality. If what you’re saying about our ability to know is true, then I don’t see how we can assert any propositions at all — since they’re all the result of illusions and the like. That’s the real difficulty with being radically skeptical about knowledge. You can take that position — but then you can’t assert anything else after that, since whatever you say is (on that theory) just the results of illusions or social constructions or the like.

      If Christian theism is true, on the other hand, we do have good reason to think we can know truth and the world because we’re made in God’s image and designed to apprehend the truth of the world we live in. That seems like a much more plausible account of how we experience the world than a radically skeptical approach.

      Thanks again for your thought-provoking comments!

      All the best,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s