Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Historically, materialists held that everything was matter -- where matter was conceived as "an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist" (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). The reason for speaking of physicalism rather than materialism is to abstract away from this historical notion, which is usually thought of as too restrictive -- for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983). It is also to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences. Indeed, physicalism is unusual among metaphysical doctrines in being associated historically with a commitment both to the sciences and to a particular branch of science, namely physics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Yes to authority, No to inerrancy

Presbyterians have always had a very strong doctrine of Biblical authority, but historically most have shied away from calling that doctrine inerrancy.

Inerrancy is a word that points to complete factual accuracy. It is easy to assume this must be the right word to describe Scripture since it is the Word of God and therefore must not have any mistakes in it. But this reasoning does not quite work, for a couple of reasons:

1. While you can apply the idea of inerrancy to a history quiz, it is hard to see how to apply it to a work of art. An inerrant quiz paper is one in which all the answers are factually accurate.

But what would it mean to apply the term inerrancy to a work of art like American Gothic? What do you think when you look at that painting? Perhaps it is "How determined farmers are, in the midst of life's adversities!" But it is not "Ah, now I know what this particular couple looked like." We recognize that a great work of art often "says something" that has little to do with an exact reproduction of "the facts." It would miss the point to argue for the inerrancy of a masterpiece.

The poems, songs, parables and sagas of the Bible are literary masterpieces. For example, the Parable of the Good Samaritan: Jesus made up this brief yet poignant story to answer the objection of the lawyer who asked about eternal life. Defending the inerrancy of this story misses the point. The point is to obey the authority of the story.

2. Believing in the inerrancy of Scripture commits us to the factual accuracy of individual texts, while believing in the authority of Scripture presses us to know the message of Scripture as a whole.

In order to be inerrant, the factuality of a statement has to be able to stand on its own: "The Battle of Gettysburg took place in 1863" is true or false on its own merits. Contrast this with Psalm 103:3 telling us that the Lord "heals all of your diseases." Or Jesus declaring that he "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). Or the description of final judgment that tells us "all liars" will end up in the lake of burning sulfur (Revelation 21:8). If the term inerrancy can be applied to these statements, then they can stand on their own, and we can believe with confidence that they are the truth.

Does the Lord heal all of our diseases? Was Jesus sent only to the lost sheep of Israel? Will all liars be cast into the lake of fire? We may want to quibble at this point and say, "Well, you have to view those statements in their context in order to see what they really mean." If we say that, we have given up on the doctrine of inerrancy: we have conceded that these verses cannot stand on their own, with their plain meaning to be accepted as the truth.

The doctrine of authority, in contrast, focuses on the whole Bible, rather than particular texts. With regard to topics like healing or inclusiveness or final judgment, this doctrine prompts us to ask, "What are all the verses that talk about this? How do they fit together to form one cohesive Biblical teaching? And how do I follow that teaching and live it out in my life?"

http://www.pcusa.org/today/believe/past/may03/dont-believe.htm

If Bahá'u'lláah said that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, and Shoghi Effendi confirmed it, it means that Joseph was not he father of Jesus in the sense that Bahá'u'lláah intended. Does it refute the notion that Joseph was the father of Jesus in the sense intended by many modern biblical scholars? Not necessarily.

In Iraq, the battle is between the puppets and the patriots.

As a minimalist, I thoroughly reject the ontological realist concept of doctrinal essentials. In my view, there are no essentials. There is only relationship (Covenant). An acceptance of the Prophets, the Master, the administration, and a commitment to obey them is relational (covenantal), not essential.

Must one have a particular understanding of the Prophet, such as Christians see Christ as a part of a Trinity? No. Jesus reportedly told His followers to become like little children (in order to enter the Kingdom of heaven). A little child does not analyze her or his parent's makeup or components. The child just loves the parent. So it is with us and the Prophets. Doctrines are interesting, but, for the most part, they are not so important.

Copyright © 2002- Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. All rights reserved.