Whether you call the Scriptures fallible or infallible is irrelevant if you do not understand what the scriptures mean. An incorrect interpretation of an infallible document is still incorrect. The point is to understand the message of the scripture and seek to further improve this understanding. We cannot continue to confuse scriptural infallibility with our inability to understand the message.
We need to learn from history, specifically the history that was taught by our Lord and Christ. He made it very clear that those who codify a law and seek a non-living word and “unity of vision” versus a living word in our world are not up to the standard.
Jesus set the example of debating the meaning of the scriptures and interpreting them for those in the temple. We need to be doing the same thing for people in our age. If we limit the new interpretation to how people dress and what kind of music they listen to then we are shallow.
It is a common mistake for immature leaders to tend to pick people like themselves to follow in their footsteps. Immature leaders use someone who will affirm their views and not challenge their views. This leads to stagnation and lack of progress. Jesus taught against this type of thinking. We are to continue to try to look at his word in new ways in the new communities and try to learn from everyone. We need to approach the kingdom of God as a child would with wonder, and questions and a sense of discovery.

God Bless.

Dave

But you would be surprised how many people are constantly lobbying to ignore theological differences for the sake of the Gospel.

I don’t always disagree with that sentiment. But, for religious denominations to be effective, in my opinion, the members need to confirm what is important, not only for orthodox Christianity, but what is central to the theological beliefs of the group that will be planting churches and sending missionaries together.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will campaign and campaign to remove some issue from the table – one that the group has already determined to be central in the accomplishment of its mission, all in the name of increased effectiveness through being open.

I agree with openness. I agree we can fixate on minor issues. But for us to be effective working TOGETHER, then it does not make for togetherness and good relationships to be telling people that a theological principle they have stated as important (as in the BFM) is not really that important.

This absurdity reaches its zenith in the argument that the SBC should be made up people of several opinions concerning the nature and inspiration of the Scripture. One group believing it is inerrant. Another believing it is “infallible” but meaning something less than infallible, i.e., fallibe on certain points, and others (who are usually allowed to teach in SBC schools) believing something less than the “infallible – meant fallible” position (but no one can describe what that is).

To people who believe such things, so long as the SBC is big, and has programs with big names, and a common culture – uniform Sunday School programs, summer camps, colleges, music etc., then the SBC is a “Great Denomination.”

Unity of vision only comes about by unity of purpose. And one cannot have unity of purpose, if different people believe different things on issues that the group has decided are important.

Why is this so hard?

David