We both know that Augustine and Luther were not talking about the inerrancy construct that is described in the Chicago Statement and pretending they are one and the same does not further the conversation.
1 Like
Oh for the love of all that is ironic!!! 
Itâs Michael Horton, so Iâm sure itâll be a fantastic readâŚ
It was Augustine who first coined the term âinerrant,â and Luther and Calvin can speak of Scripture as free from error.
1 Like
Oh i seeâŚso you take Genesis chapter 1-11 as literal writings then do you? Finally, a TEist who does. That would also mean that Exodus 20:8-11 actually does mean God literally did create tye heavens and the Earth in 6 24 hour days (because Genesis says Evening and morning, day 1âŚday 2âŚday 3 etc)
Im Christian, your Hebrew bible claim is nonsense to a Christian. We believe Christ gave us the gospelâŚwhich is that He humbled himself taking on the form of a man and died for our sins thus providing the only means by which humanity can be saved from eternal death and restored back unto him.That reetoration is the second comingâŚwhich is highlighted in Revelation 21.
You do realise that Jesus, given his mother and earthly father were devout Jews, was taught the torah right?
Did you have a point?
Remember the pharasees were taken back by christs knowledge in the gospel of John 7:21
And the Jews marveled, saying, âHow knoweth this man letters, having never learned?â
He was clearly well versed in the torah and language and thats because he was a Jew and followed the Mosaic tradition religiously.
This is both true and false. It is universally accepted amongst the best textual scholars in the world today that tye errors you talk about are minor scribal ones that do not affect any biblical doctrineâŚmostly just spelling and grammatical errors. None of them can be used fo support the idea that Genesis chapters 1-11 are not real history. Im happy to point you in the direction of some of these scholars who explain textual criticism and this topic of inerrancy if you like.
Contrary to many hereâŚbiblical innerancy is key to faith. Bart Erhman is a famous example of a scholar who lost his faith because of exactly this topic.
I donât know of any conservative theologian who makes the doctrine of inerrancy an issue for saving faith
3 Likes
It seems to me that the church is quoted as sayingâŚthey are without error (see below)
âAnd the church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author.â
If God explains creation to Moses, who then records it, how can one claim the Mosaic writings are not literal history? (Especially when we have 3 new testament writers all saying the same thing as Moses. Matthew, Luke and Peter)
No doubt.
Not to hear his contemporaries (and even the gospel writers) tell it. Moses commanded that adulterers be stoned. Jesus found a way around that - and made it clear that there was now a new authority in town. The Pharisees of the time would have shared in your concern about Jesus playing fast and loose with Torah law. His followers after him too (Paul and the other apostles - read Acts 15) also dismissed many of the legal demands made by the Torah that some wanted to subject the new gentile believers to. This caused much consternation to the original Torah legalists. It sounds like youâre disappointed that they didnât prevail. Sorry to break it to you, Adam, but Christ and all the apostles after him finally understood that this new community was headed in new directions. Something (someone) more important than either Moses or Solomon had finally come to town! And the world hasnât been the same since. We have to follow Christ here - and cannot turn away from Christ to follow you as you try to undo everything the council of Acts 15 decided under the direction of Christâs Spirit.
1 Like
Sorry but thats YOUR twisting of scripture.
Christ actually addresses this directlyâŚ
Matthew 5 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Christ died on the cross because the wages of sin are death. Thats the whole point. The law demands justice and it always will. We arent saved by justice, we are saved because He paid the price for us (Justification)
Not a single conservative theologian I know of⌠but feel free to believe what you want, there is no shortage of that today
1 Like
False dichotomy fallacy. There are more than 2 choices.
Which claim? The Hebrew should be translated âthe satanâ. Proper names donât have a definite article. And is applied to several humans.
Still waiting for your comprehensive Biblical evidence that serpent = Satan.
Per Bart Ehrman that is not the reason.
1 Like
You have not answered the question.
Under the heading of innerancy, how can you explain that:
-
Moses, after talking face to face with God numerous times, records a literal 7 day Creation, then writes Exodus 20:8-11
-
Matthew and Luke both record Christ (The Son of God) also verbalising Moses writings about the Flood and Sodom and Gomorah as literal history)
-
The apostle Peter in 2 Pet also specifically referring to those same events when talking about salvationâŚ
All alegorical is it? Wouldnt that also mean then that the entire bible is nothing more than a fictional allegorical story. There is no real God, he is just an allegory, Christ didnt really live on this earth and especially wasnt raised from the dead, there is no second coming, and when you die its kaput for you and everyone else.
Thatis wherethis ridiculous claim that innerancy may be used to deny a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 and indeed the genealogies in matthew and Luke leads. Bart Erhman is a classic point and example of where this innerancy stumbling block leads.
The bible historical writings are inerrant. God did not make a mistake, he is not learning how to be God, nor did Moses and the apostles get confused when dictating Gods revelation to them. Tyereis no textual issue and that is proven because we have so many different autographs for the various parts of the bible canon that agree. We have so many that the bible could be easily restored by simply collating them again and it would be identical to what it was back in the 400âs and/or when the vulgate was translated into latin.
Bill tries to put forward a different attack in support of TEism by focusing on the Hebrew bible. His is a ridiculous claim, we are Christians, we either read the entire bible or, none of it!
@adamjedgar
You wrote:
âIt is universally accepted amongst the best textual scholars in the world today that tye errors you talk about are minor scribal ones that do not affect any biblical doctrineâŚâ
You are right that the errors do not affect biblical doctrine.
It is doubtful that you are right that this is âuniversally accepted amongst the best textual scholars.â
You are completely wrong that all the errors are scribal ones.
1 Like
Did you ever read Longmanâs book? I know you were interested in the chapter on homosexuality, but you should look at the intro or first chapter. I donât recall which dealt specifically with interpretation.
1 Like
I think i said none of the claimed errors have any impact on bible doctrine. Did i not say that?
It appears you are changing the subject.
Do you still claim all the errors are scribal errors?
Another good article describing inerrancy, and discussing a bit how it has been weaponized by some in its current usage, which differs from what the historical concept of inerrancy entails.
3 Likes
The author lost me in the second paragraph:
we all agree, is infallible in all that it teaches regarding God and salvation
This is a massive hand wave as âweâ do not all agree it is unerring in matters of God and salvation