Do you hold the Bible as Inerrant/inspired/infallible?

[Yeshua1]

Is that essential doctrine?

 

[billwald]

You present 3 different concepts.

I accept the Bible as containing sufficient information for (to regulate) faith and practice. I suppose "inspired" covers that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It depends what you mean by each of those statements. I would agree that each statement is true with in the confines of what you are speaking about. I believe that the bible is Inerrant/Inspired and Infallible in all that it asserts. But that doesn't mean it doesn't come from a particular perspective biased on that perpective. And it doesn't mean that the bible should be used as a science book.

For instance let me bring up some difficult points to see what your thoughts on this matter are. Now keep in mind I'm not trying to challenge your faith that the bible is all of these things which it is but just trying to clarify for you that what you mean by each statement must be properly defined or people can run slipshod over you.

Matthew 2:23 says

And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.

Now this might very well be true but by using Scripture alone you face the difficulty that no where in the OT does it say "that he would be called a Nazarene" nor is Nazareth mention or anyone from Nazareth is mentioned anywhere in the old testiment.
Matthew 27:9-10 says

9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me.”

Which also may very well be true but once again by holding only to scripture you find that there is no such text in the book of Jeremiah. Now some will say that what Matthew is refering to is Zachariah 11:10-13 but then you face several problems. 1) Jeremiah is not Zachariah (error?) 2) that passage doesn't say what Matthew is saying

10 And I took my staff Favor, and I broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples. 11 So it was annulled on that day, and the sheep traders, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter.

Again problematic.
John 2:13-17 says

13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Supposedly this fullfills psalm 69:9

For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

The problem with this attribution is 1) its isn't a prophesy for the Messiah and 2) the speaker in psalms says as I expand the text

You, God, know my folly; my guilt is not hidden from you.6 Lord, the Lord Almighty,
may those who hope in you
not be disgraced because of me;
God of Israel,
may those who seek you
not be put to shame because of me.
7 For I endure scorn for your sake,
and shame covers my face.
8 I am a foreigner to my own family,
a stranger to my own mother’s children;
9 for zeal for your house consumes me,
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me

and from the King James

O God, You know my foolishness;
And my sins are not hidden from You

which is problematic because Jesus is neither a fool, guilty, nor a sinner. So what did the Apostles remember?
Also John 13:33 says

Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’

and this statement is questioned by Peter in Vs. 36

36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?”

after Jesus gives a little discourse Thomas also asks John 14:4

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”

and Jesus gives further teachings and instructions and begins to wrap it up in John 16:says

5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’

When it was clear two apostles already asked him that.

Just some food for thought as you ponder how you take each of these points with regard to biblical Innerrancy, Inspiration, and infallibility and what it is you really mean.

 

[Yeshua1]

good points addressed, should have spelled out how I view each concept!

Inspired means that the Holy Spirit guided and made sure their writtings were just the same as God speaking it directly"Thus sayth the Lord"

Inerrant means that there are NO errors within the bible, either historical/scienctific/spiritual...

Infallible means that it is the final and only source for our theology/doctrines and opractices, as it alone is the assured revealtion from God!

ALL of that applies to the originals.....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

good points addressed, should have spelled out how I view each concept!

Inspired means that the Holy Spirit guided and made sure their writtings were just the same as God speaking it directly"Thus sayth the Lord"

Inerrant means that there are NO errors within the bible, either historical/scienctific/spiritual...

Infallible means that it is the final and only source for our theology/doctrines and opractices, as it alone is the assured revealtion from God!

ALL of that applies to the originals.....

We can agree to your first point. However, points two and three are problematic. Consider your statement about biblical inerrancy

Inerrant means that there are NO errors within the bible, either historical/scienctific/spiritual...

If your what you believe true about the bible with regard to scientific how do you reconcile such issues as

20 “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. 22 Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. 23 But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you. - Leviticus 11:20-23

Scientifically the bible is in error because insects have 6 legs not 4. Or how about this one?

23 Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. - 1 Kings 7:23

This is problematic because when measuring the circumference of the circle described here with a diameter of 10 cubits we would get a cirumference of 31.4159265358979 or 10 times pi and not 30. Or how about where Genesis says

And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

The moon is not its own light source but reflects the light. And there are many others than these. So I think you may want to re-evaluate your definition for inerrant.

And as far as infallible that isn't even close to the definition of infalibility which is defined as

Incapable of erring

and with all the verses I've pointed out you may want to reconsider.

I will explain how I look at these latter two.

Let me start with the first one first because its the simplist. Infallibility of the bible I would say is best understood as it being

Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals

as far as biblical inerrancy I hold that

The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures - CCC

 

[mont974x4]

I do believe all three concepts are applicable to Scripture and I believe it is essential. If we are comfortable with explaining away any part of Scripture we have opened a door to question or deny any part and all parts of it. For example, if I explained away the creation account of Genesis 1 in favor of evolution then right from the start I have opened the door to doubt and denial of the rest. If I cannot trust what he says about creation why should I trust Him concerning what He says about salvation?

 

[Tom Bryant]

believe in verbal, plenary inspiration which would include inerrancy. I think it is vital.

 

[go2church]

Those terms undefined are the can of worms.

Each one depending on the definition could find me supporting them or rejecting them.

Not essential in my book

 

[Revmitchell]

believe in verbal, plenary inspiration which would include inerrancy. I think it is vital.

I do as well.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Those terms undefined are the can of worms.

Each one depending on the definition could find me supporting them or rejecting them.

Not essential in my book

I agree entirely with the first part of your post. However, I do believe that properly defined it is essential that you hold to those scriptural attributes for your spiritual growth. Now if what you mean by essential is whether what you believe about those attributes of scripture is salvific; I would agree that it isn't.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree entirely with the first part of your post. However, I do believe that properly defined it is essential that you hold to those scriptural attributes for your spiritual growth. Now if what you mean by essential is whether what you believe about those attributes of scripture is salvific; I would agree that it isn't.

But if you hold to a bible that may contain errors in it, and is NOT a completely inspired/revelation from God, how can we be sure on salvation aspect within it?

 

[billwald]

Then we can't be saved unless we know the mind of God?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But if you hold to a bible that may contain errors in it, and is NOT a completely inspired/revelation from God, how can we be sure on salvation aspect within it?

You make two errors. First, containing errors can be due to a lot of things. typographical, etc... and just because there may be such errors doesn't preclude that something is uninspired or a revelation from God. 2ndly, I am not suggesting, as I've made clear in a previous post, that the bible is uninspired. My suggestion is that your definition of what you mean is lacking and can easily be challenged as I've done just to show you problems. My suggestion is that you revamp how you define each of those terms. God never suggested to any one or gave anyone revelation that the bible is a scientific book, or a dictionary, or without bias, etc... What God does guarantee us from the bible is that it is the entirely innerrent, infallible, and inspired word of God to lead us to Salvation showing us the plan of God, his attributes and our relationship to him.

Also consider this and many protestants quickly overlook this simple truth. When Jesus lived the vast majority of people were illiterate unable to read or write. Most of what they knew was told to them by someone they considered authoritative. Most people knew scriptures by memorizing them by having scriptures constantly repeated to them. Education was not as easily accessible then as it is today. So accordingly to believe that someone couldn't be saved because they couldn't read the bible to have correct thoughts about the bible is ludicrous. Jesus never said have in order to be saved you must have a belief that scriptures are innerrent, or infallable. Jesus said to be saved you must have faith. I'm Certain the theif on the cross didn't have your believe about the scriptures yet he is with Jesus Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

The Bible is inerrant. It is inerrant because it is true and absolutely correct in all its doctrines. Copiest errors do not make scripture errant.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible is inerrant. It is inerrant because it is true and absolutely correct in all its doctrines. Copiest errors do not make scripture errant.

I agree with you. I never said the bible wasn't inerrant. However, according to Yeshua in errant means there are no errors and copiest errors are just that errors in the text we have but those errors don't affect its doctrines or cause error in doctrines. The bible cannot be viewed as a dictionary nor as a scientific manual. And neither should it be. However, if you go around believe the bible to be a scientific manual you'll go around believing pi to be 3.0 rather than 3.14 or that insects only have four legs etc... and end up making the same errors many who would not change from the standard model during Galileo's day and believe that the cosmos are geocentric. When this isn't what God asserts in his scriptures as God is asserting the truth for our salvation. I you don't like what I said how about listening to a baptist preacher on the topic

Kremer, who holds a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the reason some people want to treat the Bible like a science book is “the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration,” which he summarized as, “God said it, and humanity wrote it down.”

I hold to the Holy Spirit inspiring the bible but I don't think a text book of science is what he had in mind. Kremer continues

Kremer said Shorter University’s new statement of faith “We believe the Bible ... is the inerrant and infallible Word of God” is true to a point. “When you come to talking about the character of God, the Bible is indeed inerrant,” he said. “When you’re talking about the revelation of God in Christ, we can trust that information with perfect confidence.”

Those who assert that the Bible is correct on its teaching about geology, however, “grossly misinterpret the Bible’s purpose,” he said, because the ancient biblical writers did not even know that an endeavor known as “geology” would ever exist.

 

[Revmitchell]

The argument "the Bible cannot be viewed as a scientific manual" is not credible.(usually used by those who hold to evolution) It is not credible because it serves no purpose to say it. Where scripture speaks on scientific things it is inerrant. Not being a scientific manual does not change that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The argument "the Bible cannot be viewed as a scientific manual" is not credible.(usually used by those who hold to evolution) It is not credible because it serves no purpose to say it. Where scripture speaks on scientific things it is inerrant. Not being a scientific manual does not change that.

Thank you for saying that!:thumbsup:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The argument "the Bible cannot be viewed as a scientific manual" is not credible.(usually used by those who hold to evolution) It is not credible because it serves no purpose to say it. Where scripture speaks on scientific things it is inerrant. Not being a scientific manual does not change that.

Its very credible when the bible says pi = 3.0 or that insects have 4 legs or that the moon is its own light source or that a bat is a bird or that Absoloms hair weighed 5 lbs or that the earth doesn't spin on its axis or travels around the sun and on and on it goes. Each of these things the bible speaks on these things and thus "where scripture speaks on scientific things it is inerrant" qualifier is met and found not to be accurate. Thus your definition of inerrancy is faulted.

 

[billwald]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=81666

If we can't tell the difference between "pale" and "green" from the text then the text is not inerrant.

 

[billwald]

>You make two errors. First, containing errors can be due to a lot of things. typographical, etc... and just because there may be such errors doesn't preclude that something is uninspired or a revelation from God.

The textual errors are predestined? That's interesting. Is God correcting his own text?