I promised commentary about my last post. Here are seven:
1. First of all, I obviously cherry-picked the comments that I thought were the most interesting. My hope, however, was that I kept only those comments that were a part of the threads I was trying to highlight and took out nothing that was pertinent. In addition, my hope was that I didn’t take the comments out of context.
2. The main reason I put up the post was to make clear the results of Vox’s way of thinking.
3. (Regarding the first thread) I put up a verse that looks like it helps prove Calvinist theology, Vox said that it could be read another way. I showed that seeing it that way lead to silly results. So Vox is forced to go with the “Well, the Bible contradicts itself there, then.”
As I mentioned in my comment, this makes me nervous. Rather than concede defeat, Vox denigrates the Bible. He states that this is not new. But I say it is, for him. He has previously stated that due to translation difficulties, specific verses may not be completely reliable. But he has never (as far as I know) stated that the Bible is self-contradictory. I think he was forced to go there. His only other choice is to agree with Calvinism.
4. It is a Christian’s job, even if he isn’t sure of inerrancy, when he finds passages in the Bible that seems to conflict with each other, to work them out – To try to find a meaning in the passages where they can both be true.
5. Twice Vox says that it is more common that people who believe in the inerrancy of scripture more commonly fall away from religion, than those who are more liberal minded. To that I respond in two ways: 1. I disagree, and I’d welcome any data to back up his statements, and 2. I hope Vox isn’t stating this in order to more fully prove that inerrancy is wrong. Because obviously there is no logical way to get from “This makes people break their faith” to “This must be false.”
6. Vox has put himself into the position that a Bible verse can prove that those he disagrees with are wrong, but that no verse can prove that he is wrong. This is a weasel position.
7. Vox makes this statement: “Considering how often people here have trouble following my thoughts, I have absolutely no problem believing that you and me and everyone else have trouble comprehending His”
Except for one thing: He’s not God. If God wants to make himself known, he will be known. This is the primary reason for the existence of the Bible. And God is watching over his word. The one who seeks Him will find Him.
Vox’s inability to be understood says nothing about God’s ability to be understood.
The Responsible Puppet 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 16, 2010 at 8:16 pm
bethyada
Hi jamsco. Some comments on your comments. 🙂
I didn’t read the thread. I don’t find the time to read all the threads these days, as interesting as some are.
1. No matter, you linked to the thread so context is easy to find.
2. Possibly, and you know him better. But I would have never thought Vox an inerrantist.
3. Doesn’t suprise me about Vox’s claim the Bible may contradict itself, though you point in 5 is more valid. But an acceptance of inerrancy does not force one to accept Calvinism. I am an inerrantist and a non-Calvinist. (Therefore I don’t think the Bible is internally contradictory.)
Part of why you may think this, is that Vox is an Open Theist. OT seems to contradict some aspects of Scripture about God’s foreknowledge, but Arminianism does not have this difficulty.
4. True. And often a greater understanding of God’s ways arises from doing this.
5. That does seem to occur, but I am uncertain whether it is more common. Liberal views can lead to increased liberalism and the problems that entails. The problem Vox identifies I think is due to a poor understanding of inerrancy. Sure, inerrancy raises some difficulties, but the difficulties that ex-inerrantists (and apostates) raise are frequently not issues of inerrancy, they are issues of an artificial concept of inerrancy.
6. Yes
7. Very much so. This is a frequent claim of Vox’s about the vagueries of language. But I don’t think it flies. Limitations of language may limit what can be said (though usually it can with increased explanations). But the possible inability for God to explain some things because of our limitations does not equate to the inability for God to tell us some things incredibly accurately. Just because I do not understand Modularity theorem does not mean that I cannot be certain about some answers in basic algebra.
January 16, 2010 at 9:41 pm
jamsco
Thanks for your comments. I’m pleased and a bit surprised at how much you agree with me.
January 16, 2010 at 10:43 pm
bethyada
Not certain why? I can bring up areas of disagreement if it will make you feel better. 🙂
January 18, 2010 at 12:25 am
fundyreformed
I find the thread you posted interesting, Jamsco. It’s somewhat ironic that clear statements in Scripture about God’s nature as being One who is not like man that He would change his mind gets bypassed for an “aside” from Gen. 6 and elsewhere. I think the direct statements about God’s nature should have more weight than narratives using words to describe something in passing. The “aside” nature of the verse you brought up is enough for him to let it lie and not try to grapple with it. But its more clear that the word “repent” in Gen. 6 is more of an “aside” type textual detail then these other clear statements of God’s nature. It does seem that Vox is taking his framework or ideology or whatever you want to call it, and finding the right Scriptures to support it.
March 17, 2010 at 9:22 am
Vox Day Apristan VS Omniderigist Comments « The Responsible Puppet
[…] The next post is here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)[Discussion] CL Question of the […]