Some Things I Believe

  1. I regard Adam as one person, as did Jesus and Paul.
  2. I think that each day of creation was most likely a literal day as we know what a day is now.
  3. I believe the Scriptures are inerrant.

Those are just a few examples relevant to this post.

It saddens me that people call me names or put labels on me because I believe these things. I’m not a fundamentalist and I don’t believe these things because I’m Reformed/Calvinist. I believe the first two because I believe that’s what the Bible says. I believe the third for many reasons.

I will defend what the Bible says and have a high view of Scripture (although I know that term may sound arrogant) without apology.

When I strongly disagree with others, I may say it’s because of unbelief if I think that’s the case but I won’t make the judgment that they are not a Christian if they’re a brother or sister in Christ because of secondary issues and I will not put negative labels on them. It saddens me that this seems to be the norm in some areas of the biblioblogosphere.

I’m certainly not perfect in this area and I still need to work on being more gentle and kind. But if you could have seen what a hothead I was 10 years ago, or even 3 years ago…

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

12 Responses to “Some Things I Believe”

  1. 1 Stan McCullars

    I also believe those things.

  2. 2 Gary Zimmerli

    I’m also with you, Jeff.

  3. 3 Robert Jimenez

    Jeff, I am totally with you on being a hot-head. I was really, really bad at one point in my life. As to the three above, I think I am in agreement with #1. #2 definitely not, #3 I do believe that God’s word is inspired, as to it being inerrant I believe that the original manuscripts were. I am confident that what we have today is very accurate to the originals.

  4. 4 Bryan L

    I may not agree with your 3 points but I definitely don’t think you’re a fundamentalist, or else I wouldn’t even bother discussing things with you since it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation with a fundamentalists.

    Bryan L

  5. 5 Robert Jimenez

    Bryan, great point. Besides, how could one not like Jeff?

  6. 6 Scripture Zealot

    See, Gary’s with me and he’s not even Reformed.

    Jeff, I am totally with you on being a hot-head.

    So you think I’m a hot-head, do you?

    Thanks Bryan. (And thanks Robert.)

    Before I knew any better I thought I was a fundamentalist because I believe in the fundamentals of the faith. Now I know what it really means and I also know that some people use this as a disparaging term for others they disagree with, especially those who like to take some portions of the Bible literally and are more conservative in their approach. I don’t know the psychology behind that.

  7. 7 Esteban Vázquez

    I believe every one of those things as well, and no one can accuse me of being a Calvinist! 🙂

  8. 8 Scripture Zealot

    I have inside information that you used to be.

    You know, I’ve never heard of Orthodox (capital O [or small o for that matter]) being used in a negative way.

  9. 9 Joel

    Yep, I’ll vote for you as well, Jeff.

  10. 10 Jason

    I’m with you on Adam and inerrancy, so long as inerrancy pertains to the autographs. I, too, consider myself more Reformed than not, but I don’t think I am a fundamentalist. Even if I were, according to some peoples’ definition, that doesn’t make me a leper, does it? 😉

  11. 11 Tony Siew

    Dear Jeff, thanks very much for stating your beliefs and where you stand on these issues. I am with you on no. 1 (Adam was a real man like Jesus and Paul). I still struggle with no. 2 as Scripture in the OT says that a day could be interpreted other than a 24-hour day. In Ezekiel, it’s 1 day to a year. I know that Gen 1 talks about evenings and mornings and arguing for a 24-hour day is still valid, though Gen 2:4 says that, “…on the day that God made the earth and the heavens” as if the day means a period of time and not a literal 24 hours since in Gen 1 it was 6 days for the creation of heavens and the earth. On no. 3, we may say that the autographs were inerrant but again it is not entirely helpful as we no longer have the autographs. Hence for me it is best to speak of the Scripture as we have now as inspired and true. Whatever errors that have crept in as copyists’ errors could not diminish the truth and inspiration of the Scripture, though the Hebrew and Greek texts as we have now may not be inerrant.

  12. 12 Scripture Zealot

    Tony, I leave #2 a bit open even though I believe it’s a literal day. I used to be believe anything else was false before I really listened to any other views. I certainly respect and understand what you’re saying.

    I feel strange about saying that the original manuscripts were inerrant because we don’t have them. But then if I believe in inerrancy then I would certainly have to believe that. I’m waiting for the perfect term, possibly infallible will do it.

    Although of course the KJV is inerrant, as long as you don’t read what the translators themselves said about it.

Comments are currently closed.

%d bloggers like this: