Is the bible inerrant?

[ProDeo (Ed)]

@Christy

So we have established people use words differently. I personally have a problem with ascribing “infallibility” to texts anyway (as opposed to the message). When I assent to “The Bible is God’s authroritiative infallible word” it’s the revelation/message/meaning (God’s word) that’s infallible and authoritiative, not the text. The meaning (God’s infallible word) is something intended by God, but communicated in the text and interpreted by fallible humans in fallible ways.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. [Gen 1:31]

God did not say His creation was perfect. I tend to say the same about the Bible as we currently have it, not perfect, but very good and it contains everything we need, Jesus.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

No you didn’t you justified yourself.

I didn’t justify anything, I explained what value the text has.

@RichardG

You are trying to justify God’s actions

Explaining what is in the text is not justifying. I know you like to claim that any time someone points out something about the scriptures that you don’t care for, but that doesn’t make it so.

@RichardG

I claim the Holy Spirit who trumps any human understanding.

I’m not that bloody arrogant.
Every heretic in history has claimed the Holy Spirit. The only way to measure that is by the text which He gave: when someone disses the text, that falsifies the claim.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

I’m not that bloody arrogant

That is a matter of opinion.

You claim unquestionable knowledge and understanding. I wonder what that is?

And I wonder if anything can answer human study and understanding?

I offer choices. you offer certainty. Who is being … shall we say dogmatic?

It would appear that my main crime is to disagree with you and your view of Scripture

Richard

Ps I wonder who declares a heretic? Can you?

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@RichardG

I wonder who declares a heretic? Can you?

If the person in question is openly promoting something that is definitely heretical (denial of the resurrection, denial of the divinity of Christ, etc.), then yes.

[heymike3]

I think there is a moral element to false teaching as well. A licentiousness with sin. “You will know them by their fruit.” I am sincerely not impugning anyone here. Just saying it’s not strictly doctrinal. But they do seem to be intertwined.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Paraleptopecten

@RichardG

wonder who declares a heretic? Can you?

If the person in question is openly promoting something that is definitely heretical (denial of the resurrection, denial of the divinity of Christ, etc.), then yes

I think you are mistaken. The definition of heresy changes. Many who were called heretics have been justified, even after they have been killed for it. The definition of a Christian is by no means certain, not written in stone. And you have no authority over anyone else.
Judge not or be judged. I would bare this in mind the next time you cast judgment on heresy.

Richard

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

A good article on defining heresy:

Who Is A “Heretic?”

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@heymike3

Ehhhh… I don’t think it is that black and white. It is a faith once and for all given. No other name under heaven. Etc.

I don’t see how the response relates to what I was claiming, which wasn’t really anything about “Christianity” or the Christian canon, it was about the rabbinic tradition of textual interpretation.

[heymike3]

@Christy

They freely “twisted” and appropriated and ignored authorial intent and recontextualized Scripture to fit their rhetorical aims. Eisigesis was applauded.

I briefly heard Keener one time talking about this, and it’s a subject I’m in no position to go deep on. I did pick up enough to understand it’s a very complicated subject. And Keener is still an inerrantist like Longman.

My point was that even if “eisigesis was applauded” it wasn’t a free for all.

I know Peter took a little liberty with quoting Joel in Acts 2, but you might say, he possessed the authority to interpret it that way.

[heymike3]

@Christy

Inerrancy is primarily an American construct

Highlights from John Woodbridge’s Did Fundamentalists Invent Inerrancy?

By the early 1990s, a powerful historiography had emerged that portrayed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as “fundamentalist” and not as an “evangelical” doctrine

In this essay, I will reiterate the thesis that biblical inerrancy has been a church doctrine or Augustinian central teaching of the Western Christian churches

Augustine clearly affirmed as a nonnegotiable church doctrine that there are no errors in sacred Scripture. Such was a working premise for him, an essential guardrail if you will

He (Kugel) helps us to understand that even if the church fathers didn’t treat the subject of inerrancy in a systematic fashion, they worked with the assumption of Scripture’s inerrancy in doing their exegesis

Did Luther believe in biblical inerrancy, for example? Reinitzer’s answer was straightforward: “Of course,” he replied. He then proceeded to give me a brief history lesson regarding how the idea that Luther didn’t believe in biblical inerrancy had gained such currency

Did Fundamentalists Invent Inerrancy?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@heymike3

Highlights from John Woodbridge’s Did Fundamentalists Invent Inerrancy?

It appears to be now a sort of contest between which prominent theologians did or did/do believe it.

Faith by popularity?

In many ways the theologians themselves have only reached status by popularity…

And we just love a hero to look up to and follow, but wait, doesn’t Scripture itself deny that approach?

Richard

[heymike3]

@RichardG

It appears to be now a sort of contest between which prominent theologians did or did/do believe it.

That was a response to the claim about where the doctrine of inerrancy originated.

[heymike3]

@RichardG

Faith by popularity?

“For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.”
Calvin

[heymike3]

@RichardG

And we just love a hero to look up to and follow, but wait, doesn’t Scripture itself deny that approach?

Yes and no. 2 Peter 3:16 immediately comes to mind. The apostles and prophets also figure prominently. Paul said something about following him as he followed Jesus.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@heymike3

“For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.”
Calvin

I wonder whether you can see the irony or ambiguity of that quote?

Richard

PS I, for one, do not rate Calvin as a good role model or advisor

[heymike3]

At least we can agree he wasn’t an American

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@heymike3

@RichardG

And we just love a hero to look up to and follow, but wait, doesn’t Scripture itself deny that approach?

Yes and no. 2 Peter 3:16 immediately comes to mind. The apostles and prophets also figure prominently. Paul said something about following him as he followed Jesus.

I think I prefer 1 Cor 1
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

(Bold is mine.)

The point being that it is not about who or how the message is given. The message is its own authority.

Richard

[heymike3]

I get what you are saying. It’s a matter of emphasis. I am also a huge fan of reader versions of the Bible. First time I read the Bible without verse numbers was like discovering a new land.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Regarding Luther, he was hesitant to consider James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation as part of the NT canon, so perhaps a little nuance there.

[heymike3]

As the late great R.C. Sproul would agree, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books