“The Lutheran definition of the term “inerrancy,” in short laymen’s terms, simply means that the Scriptures do not teach falsehoods, but always teach the truth. Lutherans have always limited “inerrancy” to the autographs; it does not apply to the copies.”
My goodness!
After weeks of debate, controversy, gnashing of teeth, and very nearly being burned at the stake by my fellow orthodox and conservative Christians, I am finally given the “Laymen’s Definition of the Lutheran View of Scriptural Inerrancy”…and I have ZERO problems with it!
Why didn’t someone tell me this sooner?
So, after all this commotion and angst, I learn that I can be a “good” orthodox, LCMS Lutheran and believe that the “apparent” discrepancies in the six Resurrection accounts in my Bible are true discrepancies (errors) but these discrepancies are not due to God nor due to the authors of the “autographs”, the originals. I must believe, by faith alone, that the originals were inerrant, since they no longer exist.
No problem! I can believe that!
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Are you being funny? It has been told — all over the place — in bits and pieces, though I will admit. 🙂
Abby
LikeLike
You better stop here, because there's a lot more problems with Christianity. Eventually, trying to get it all to a coherent faith will be harder than holding three basketballs underwater.
LikeLike
For your info, Gary. Pastor Jordan Cooper's response to DagoodS was aired twice today on Pirate Christian Radio.
Abby
LikeLike
Have you ever talked to a Rabbi? Christianity is Jewish . . .
Abby
LikeLike
Attention Readers:
LCMS pastor, Dr. John Bombaro, has begun his discussion with DagoodS here:
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/05/lcms-pastor-addresses-atheists-on.html
LikeLike
Huh?
LikeLike
Your comment was about “coherent faith” — Christianity's lack of. Talk to a Rabbi, ask questions, and see what I mean. Or an Eastern Orthodox priest.
But, actually, our essentials are very simple. Simple enough for a child to understand. But if you want to go deeper . . .
~A
LikeLike
I still don't get what you mean. For me, there are so many things in the Bible that I can't accept. Discrepancies, scientific errors, moral atrocities, archaelogical questions……
These things eat at me. They throw me into such a state of uncertainty that I eventually throw my hands up and walk away. Later on, I come back but it happens again.
LikeLike
Yes, that does sound overwhelming especially if you have to reconcile everything all at once. Were you ever a member of a church? Are you saying you entirely reject the Bible? What do you think of Jesus?
~A
LikeLike
I used to be a Baptist. I don't entirely reject the Bible, no. Not sure what I think of Jesus; his divinity, virgin birth accounts, ascension, etc. I'm just drawn to grace. Every now and then over the years, especially when I am greatly stressed and in despair I get hit with grace. The way Paul Tillich describes it. The experience made an impression on my soul.
LikeLike
What does “grace” mean to you? How do you get it? If you don't entirely reject the Bible, what do you take away from it?
~A
LikeLike
The continental divide of all scripture, theological thought, philosophical inquiry, and historical investigation is this question asked by Jesus: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15)
LikeLike
I accept the above LCMS “Layman's” Definition of Inerrancy. But I would prefer to say that the “originals” were inerrant. Let me explain:
For at least the first 20 years of Christianity there was no Bible. Not one single book of the NT had yet been written. So was the Church without the Word of God? No. The Word of God was in oral form, and the oral form was just as much the Word of God as what was later written down on papyrus, then parchment, then paper out of a printing press.
So, in regards to the many “apparent” discrepancies between the six accounts of the Resurrection, the account of who bought the Potter's Field, on which day of the week Jesus observed the Last Supper, the discrepant battle statistics between several books in the OT, and other discrepancies in our Bibles, I would say that even though harmonization is possible for the these apparent discrepancies, as is possible for practically any textual discrepancy between any two books of history, it is still possible that these discrepancies are true errors: Somebody copied the original incorrectly, or even, the original author wrote down some of the details incorrectly, not on purpose, but by simple human error.
I would go so far as to say that in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, for
example, I believe that most probably Matthew told the original story to a group or groups of early believers, under inspiration of God, sometime between 33 AD and 70 AD. As he promised, God preserved the central facts of the story that were eventually written down by whoever wrote down the story onto papyrus, possibly Matthew, but in my opinion, more likely someone else. The writer compiled the Gospel from the core story of Matthew, adding in information from other sources such as Mark, M, source Q, and maybe other sources.
Therefore, the original story as told by Matthew is inerrant, and the teachings
and doctrines as proclaimed by Matthew have been preserved intact, but some of the details may have been messed up; but they are inconsequential errors. They do not affect even one doctrine or teaching of the orthodox Christian Faith.
LikeLike
Grace means “you are accepted”. I get from the Bible mostly the teachings of Paul about grace. I've experienced how grace leads one to naturally be good.
I know I'm inconsistent.
LikeLike
No, not inconsistent. I can understand you. Yes, Grace does mean we are accepted. Does it have anything to do with Jesus? Grace does lead one to be good. It is the fruit of the Spirit.
Interesting about Paul Tillich. His father was a conservative Lutheran Pastor from Prussia. That is where my ancestors came from. Paul also became a Lutheran Pastor. I will have to get one of his books. Which one do you like best?
~A
LikeLike
I've never read a whole book by him, but I've read stuff here and there over the years. And yes, when I've experienced grace Jesus was there, but it was more that the awareness of the acceptence came first and it pointed to Jesus. It was not me exercising my “free wil”; grace laid hold of me.
LikeLike
You sound like a reader. My favorite reading tends to be fantasies, theology, and classics. What are your favorites?
You mentioned you used to be Baptist. Do you have a church you are attending now? I am Lutheran. I attend a small church which I love. I primarily choose a church based on what the Pastor is teaching and then if he is friendly and kind. My Pastor has wonderful qualities. The people there are very down to earth and friendly as well.
~A
LikeLike