Thanks for the clarification. The Lord bless you, body, soul, spirit, mind, will, and heart!!!

I’m thinkin’ its more like what Orville Redenbacher would have if he were a chiropractor.

As for the Scriptural support, we probably just have a slightly different view on the regulative principle (not surprising since I don’t know any two people who have the same view on it ). I don’t think you can use Scripture to prove, say, Paul’s view of discipleship to a “T”…at least not easily. Paul certainly has an assumed method of discipling people, we all do, but unless someone questions him on it, he is not going to explain it. Therefore, I try to see instances that show forth how Paul uses what he knows to point back to how he knows what he knows. Confusing? Here’s my best attempt to explain it.

In Philemon 8, 9, and 10 Paul states the he could command (orthodoxy) Philemon to keep Onesimus (orthopraxy), but instead he appeals to his will (orthopathy) so that we will want to do what is both right theologically and practically. Again, I realize this might be a stretch for some, but as I said, no one questions Paul’s method of discipleship, so trying to explain it is hard to do within Scripture. But judging by this passage, Paul uses all three spheres in a way to motivate Philemon to become a better disciple. Paul appeals to these three spheres in just about every epistle.

Read Titus and watch how Paul appeals to people’s practices (suitable for good works), doctrine (teach what accords with sound doctrine), and will (remember how you were before Christ (3:2-3). Certainly, there will be overlap, the analogy in the article shows that) but ultimately, all three are involved.

Lastly, I think some of this doubles for Paul’s view of man. Mind (orthodoxy), body (orthopraxy) and soul (orthopathy). Does that help?

Thanks for your thoughtful and well written post, and the web article that you directed us to. I thought that I would agree with you as I read your post, but then when I went to the web article, I came away with some questions.

I had never seen the three intersecting circles of orthodoxy (belief in the inerrancy of scripture included here), orthopraxy (putting the truth to practice or what in the book of James is called being a doer of the word), and orthoproxy (having correct feelings?).

This last one is the one I am having a hard time identifying and accepting. Part of me thinks its important to do what we do in our life because this is our desire (thus our feelings are involved), however one of the things I believe is paramount to growing up in our spiritual faith is learning to distrust our feelings and learning to do God’s will even if we don’t feel it or feel like it.

Maybe I am not understanding this so if you could explain it to me I would appreciate it. Also, I don’t see any scriptural support for your views either in your notes here or in the article. Why do you and the author not feel a need to reference scriptural support for the things you believe and do, and only make vague illusions to scripture?

Its not our opinions, no matter how correct they may be, but the word of God that changes lives, resolves arguments, and gets to the core issues in people’s lives, and thus it is called the sword of the Spirit (a weapon God’s people need to learn how to skillfully wield):

Hebrews 4:12, “12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

As Corby Stevens says above in #92 “In order to pass the test, the answer needs to be right.” and he also points out that this has little to do with whether, and how, a person can be drawn to Jesus.

So, “inerrancy or not” is largely an internal Christians-talking-to-Christians sort of issue that doesn’t even have much application in apologetics or in sharing the gospel with others.

I think it may make some of us feel quite uncomfortable, but then no one ever said that just ‘being human’ was the easiest thing in the world.

For the nonbeliever none of the three converging strands is in place: no acceptance of the Bible’s authority or truth, no internal witness of the Spirit, no community of believers to reinforce the usual understanding of what’s right. If the believer were to meet the nonbeliever on his or her own turf, it might be necessary to build faith up from scratch rather than whittling away at the edges of a pre-existing faith. So, for example, someone might come to believe most of the core tenets of Christianity but find it difficult to overcome skepticism regarding Paul’s apparent acceptance of slavery or the 6-day creation or attributing various OT slaughters to God’s will. I think the non-inerrantists would be more willing to accept any number of asterisks and caveats in a new convert’s statement of faith. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is of course a matter of debate.