<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are you a fan of the &#8220;patchwork&#8221; Gospel??</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/are-you-a-fan-of-the-patchwork-gospel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/are-you-a-fan-of-the-patchwork-gospel/</link>
	<description>Radical Christianity from a disabled viewpoint.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:29:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robaigh</title>
		<link>http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/are-you-a-fan-of-the-patchwork-gospel/#comment-231</link>
		<dc:creator>Robaigh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/?p=231#comment-231</guid>
		<description>Sorry I haven&#039;t been by here in a while.  Quite a while, obviously.

I think you&#039;re making a huge leap by claiming that not believing in inerrancy (of Scripture) necessarily leads to a hand-picking of sections that make sense, specifically the &quot;warm and fuzzy,&quot; feel-good bits.  

For one thing, there&#039;s a LOT in the Bible that doesn&#039;t make sense to me.  That doesn&#039;t mean that I discount it or cut it out for my convenience - it just means I don&#039;t understand it.  It also doesn&#039;t follow that I then just pick the warm and fuzzy bits.  What if the warm and fuzzies are the things that don&#039;t make sense to me?  I&#039;m just saying that a does not lead to b here.

On top of this, I know plenty of inerrancy proponents who pick and choose which aspects they will follow and which they will discard.  Levitical law is a prime example that illustrates the point.  

Inerrancy denies the historicity of Scripture.  Just as Jesus Christ is both God and Human, Scripture is both God&#039;s Word and Men&#039;s work.  I agree with you insofar as you say that the Scripture we have is what God intended us to have, but God gave us God&#039;s revelation through human hands working within history.  If God wanted us to have something neat and infallible, God would have given it to us out of thin air.  It&#039;s clear this did not happen.

I think the primary problem with inerrancy is that it puts God&#039;s ability to work with, in spite of, and for the sake of humans outside of His grasp.  What&#039;s wrong with realizing and admitting the truth that the versions of the Bible that we have are translated works of men (and women), compiled from sometimes inconsistent manuscripts (and fragments of manuscripts), filled with occasional transcriptional errors, intentional alterations and disagreement in terms of translation?  

This is historical fact and it is not dangerous to faith.  In truth, that the Bible came to be at all is miraculous.  How can you say that, because I don&#039;t believe in inerrancy of the Bible that I don&#039;t take it seriously as the written revelation about the eternal Word of God?  

The Bible is God&#039;s word secondarily to Jesus Christ as God&#039;s Word.  I know about Jesus because of the Bible, and so I take it very, very seriously.  I just don&#039;t worship the Bible.  I don&#039;t believe it is inerrant, but I believe it is sufficient.  I don&#039;t believe it is divine, but it is about the Divine and it points to the Divine.  I don&#039;t believe the Bible will get me into heaven, but I believe it points to the One who will.

Blessings to you in Jesus&#039; name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry I haven&#8217;t been by here in a while.  Quite a while, obviously.</p>
<p>I think you&#8217;re making a huge leap by claiming that not believing in inerrancy (of Scripture) necessarily leads to a hand-picking of sections that make sense, specifically the &#8220;warm and fuzzy,&#8221; feel-good bits.  </p>
<p>For one thing, there&#8217;s a LOT in the Bible that doesn&#8217;t make sense to me.  That doesn&#8217;t mean that I discount it or cut it out for my convenience &#8211; it just means I don&#8217;t understand it.  It also doesn&#8217;t follow that I then just pick the warm and fuzzy bits.  What if the warm and fuzzies are the things that don&#8217;t make sense to me?  I&#8217;m just saying that a does not lead to b here.</p>
<p>On top of this, I know plenty of inerrancy proponents who pick and choose which aspects they will follow and which they will discard.  Levitical law is a prime example that illustrates the point.  </p>
<p>Inerrancy denies the historicity of Scripture.  Just as Jesus Christ is both God and Human, Scripture is both God&#8217;s Word and Men&#8217;s work.  I agree with you insofar as you say that the Scripture we have is what God intended us to have, but God gave us God&#8217;s revelation through human hands working within history.  If God wanted us to have something neat and infallible, God would have given it to us out of thin air.  It&#8217;s clear this did not happen.</p>
<p>I think the primary problem with inerrancy is that it puts God&#8217;s ability to work with, in spite of, and for the sake of humans outside of His grasp.  What&#8217;s wrong with realizing and admitting the truth that the versions of the Bible that we have are translated works of men (and women), compiled from sometimes inconsistent manuscripts (and fragments of manuscripts), filled with occasional transcriptional errors, intentional alterations and disagreement in terms of translation?  </p>
<p>This is historical fact and it is not dangerous to faith.  In truth, that the Bible came to be at all is miraculous.  How can you say that, because I don&#8217;t believe in inerrancy of the Bible that I don&#8217;t take it seriously as the written revelation about the eternal Word of God?  </p>
<p>The Bible is God&#8217;s word secondarily to Jesus Christ as God&#8217;s Word.  I know about Jesus because of the Bible, and so I take it very, very seriously.  I just don&#8217;t worship the Bible.  I don&#8217;t believe it is inerrant, but I believe it is sufficient.  I don&#8217;t believe it is divine, but it is about the Divine and it points to the Divine.  I don&#8217;t believe the Bible will get me into heaven, but I believe it points to the One who will.</p>
<p>Blessings to you in Jesus&#8217; name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/are-you-a-fan-of-the-patchwork-gospel/#comment-220</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/?p=231#comment-220</guid>
		<description>Excellent piece!  I heard of  the term &lt;a href=&quot;http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/dalmatian-theology/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dalmatian Theology&lt;/a&gt; that describes this same concept.  People think the Bible is inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  That don&#039;t say it that way, of course, but that is the net result of their Dalmatian / Patchwork theology.

May we embrace and follow the full Gospel!

Great blog - keep up the good work!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent piece!  I heard of  the term <a href="http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/dalmatian-theology/" rel="nofollow">Dalmatian Theology</a> that describes this same concept.  People think the Bible is inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  That don&#8217;t say it that way, of course, but that is the net result of their Dalmatian / Patchwork theology.</p>
<p>May we embrace and follow the full Gospel!</p>
<p>Great blog &#8211; keep up the good work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ha Tikvah</title>
		<link>http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/are-you-a-fan-of-the-patchwork-gospel/#comment-211</link>
		<dc:creator>Ha Tikvah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/?p=231#comment-211</guid>
		<description>Aww shucks Bro - nice of you to drop by and comment LOL!   Appreciated your input and nice to know you&#039;re still reading my ramblings :) .   Glad it meets with your approval too!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aww shucks Bro &#8211; nice of you to drop by and comment LOL!   Appreciated your input and nice to know you&#8217;re still reading my ramblings <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  .   Glad it meets with your approval too!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bro8</title>
		<link>http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/are-you-a-fan-of-the-patchwork-gospel/#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>bro8</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/?p=231#comment-210</guid>
		<description>A very good article. Unfortunately there are too many so called Christians who pick and mix where the gospel is concerned. Once again you shot straight to the heart of the matter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very good article. Unfortunately there are too many so called Christians who pick and mix where the gospel is concerned. Once again you shot straight to the heart of the matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Slight Delay &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Patchwork Christianity?</title>
		<link>http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/are-you-a-fan-of-the-patchwork-gospel/#comment-209</link>
		<dc:creator>A Slight Delay &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Patchwork Christianity?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 03:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tikkiro.wordpress.com/?p=231#comment-209</guid>
		<description>[...] post that I came across at random, this time from Ever Looking Upwards, who asks, &#8220;Are you a fan of the &#8216;patchwork&#8217; Gospel??&#8221; She asserts: If you don’t consider scripture to be the inerrant Word of God (and thus above the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] post that I came across at random, this time from Ever Looking Upwards, who asks, &#8220;Are you a fan of the &#8216;patchwork&#8217; Gospel??&#8221; She asserts: If you don’t consider scripture to be the inerrant Word of God (and thus above the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
