Featured Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

Which is the definition of inerrancy.

 

You assert that no one hears from God except through scripture. That assertion is unsupported and is false according to the testimony of enormous numbers of Christians who regularly speak with God.

No one has made that assertion.

Yes, and you are hardened into your position. I don't want to be the cause of further hardening, so you win the argument. I'm not going to argue with you.

 

Not any Jehovah's Witness that I have talked to. And I know a few current ones and one former one.

 

That's a very loose definition of inerrancy that I haven't heard before in the debates over the last 35 years in Southern Baptist life. If that is the definition of inerrancy, then I'm okay with it. But most definitions go much farther and extend only to the original manuscripts.

 

Inerrancy is a theory - usually about original manuscripts - that speaks to the character of having "no error" (in-errant-cy). I write shopping lists and documents that are inerrant on occasions. That doesn't indicate anything special about the usefulness of the content. Reliability speaks to the issue of usefulness and purpose. My shopping list does not help me rebuild a transmission in any profound way. When we say the scriptures are reliable, that's a shade different.

Since most theories of inerrancy focus on original manuscripts and not the texts we have now, those theories actually undermine the confidence of inerrancy adherents in the reliability of the scriptures.

I am not an inerrantist (except perhaps according to RevMitchell's nonstandard definition) and I don't spend any time worrying about the scriptures as being reliable, nor am I shaken by attacks on the Bible. Christians should experience the Bible in a living way, as food for the journey and a light for the darkness. It does not hold that those who do not advocate inerrancy are filled with doubts about scripture. It seems that the people who can't stop talking about reliability of the scriptures have things they need to finish working through.

You are making a category mistake. Those who do not hold to certain views of inerrancy are NOT saying that the scripture is "wrong." As I said before, inerrancy is TOO LOW of a view of scripture for me.

 

The theory is itself error. Any error makes the scriptures wrong. Without error (definition) is not the same as low number of errors. If any error is an acceptable , then the question must be posed, what is in error and what is not? This allows man to question the scripture in whole or place their opinion over God's as to what is Truth.

Why believe scripture if you believe it to be wrong in any detail? Did God make the mistake?

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Scripture cannot contradict the nature of God. Scripture cannot contradict the Holy Spirit. The Word is and cannot be in any fashion with a error of any sort.

If those who accept this theory compare man's opinions about scripture , then errors abound.

 

BaptistBeliever is pretty much articulating what my position is so I'll just add this:

There are several parts to respond to here, but I'll hit the broader claim (inerrancy) and then the other one (canonicity):

You can deny or simply not affirm inerrancy and be a Christian.

Since the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived never affirmed inerrancy, it would be foolish to say this is a fundamental/essential of faith. It also smacks of biblio-idolatry where the text of Scripture becomes divine as opposed to divinely inspired.

As for the canon, yes someone can deny the 66 books (which I'm guessing that's what the OP means here) of the Canon and be a Christian. Since the 66 books were officially sanctioned by the Church until 397, it would be the height of hubris to suggest all those professing Christ prior to 397 were unsaved.

Let's remember here, salvation is determined by whether someone as confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and believed in their heart God raised Him from the dead. Not the belief in the Trinity, or Virgin Birth, or any number of theological positions...it is the condition of your heart in response to the call of Jesus to Himself.

 

When I hold my Greek NT and Hebrew OT in my hand, I am holding the perfect, inerrant Word of God.

 

Except for the variants. Biggrin

 

I'm speaking of internal inerrancy, which is the normal viewpoint when speaking of an inerrant Scripture.

 

Just giving you a hard time. Biggrin

 

That is an important and needful task! Thumbsup

 

well, you may be holding the inerrant Word of God, We can only accept the original language is inspired and inerrant.

 

Are you?

Certainly, what you hold may be the most accurate available "copy" of the inerrant Word of God, however, depending on the ability of the copier, the dedication of the copier, and the source from which the copier took (copies of the copies ...) the Greek NT and Hebrew OT that you hold may not be that "perfect, inerrant Word of God."

As you know there are differences between the Byzantine and the Alexandrian, in which some make much, but frankly come down to less than (imo) 7% when comparing the two. But there is, never-the-less that ever so slight difference.

Certain "variants" occur even in the available recordings of the earliest records (accounting for little effect, but there are "variants").

It matters not that the variants - differences - are large or tiny. That there are differences means that one does not hold the "perfect, inerrant Word of God" in their hand when holding the Greek NT or the Hebrew OT (which wasn't always in Hebrew in every book - notably Daniel and Ezra).

So, the "inerrancy" then must be applied specifically to the original manuscripts, in which people of this day may hold the most accurate and best copy available, but cannot include either the word inerrant nor perfect attached to those documents.

That neither diminishes nor impacts the Scriptures as both sacred and trustworthy. The reliability of the texts is greater than any book that relies upon translation copies. And, as discoveries have uncovered, the textual variants in no manner effect the historical accuracy, the doctrines, and the practices described for the readers. Such differences are in essence insignificant to the message of the Scriptures.

Therefore, the Scriptures are worthy to be both authoritative and trusted in all matters of faith and practice, and are used by the Spirit of God as that sharp sword to divide, to protect, and to sustain.

Just a few random thoughts.

 

I never asserted that.

 

My apologies. Based on previous conversations, I apparently came to an erroneous conclusion.

So you assert that persons CAN hear from God, other than through scripture? I agree with that. However, I don't understand your argument that Abraham was an exception to the need to have scripture since he heard from God directly.

 

I answered this in Post #30, before you posted this.

I think you are confusing inspiration and inerrancy. I just took a look at The Battle for the Bible, by Harold Lindsell (the book which launched the modern controversy), and could not find your viewpoint there.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean "the original manuscripts" rather than "the original language"?

 

I have a feeling that you and I might be unintentionally talking past each other. You seem to point to experiences (ie hearing directly from God) as the means by which people get saved to day. At least some. I believe you indicated your position as we do not need the bible to get saved.

I do not intend to be sensationalistic but the word of God says that faith comes by the word of God. Our experiences need to be measured against God's word to verify if they are from God or not. The word of God is the standard of all truth. Any position that deviates from that is heresy..

 

John,

You are correct, you did answer appropriately in #30, and also about Harold Lindsell.

I would point out that Harold Lindsell took part in developing and signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978 along with, "James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham." (taken from list of attenders found here)

(Personally, I have great regard for this group, though I do have some differences with individuals on individual issues as I do with all scholars)

For the readers (and John) who want to know where I got some of what I was writing, the following may help.

Perhaps you can find some of what I wrote contained in this document in pdf form.
ICBI_1

In particular you may be interested in article XIII and XV, but more so in the Exposition section under "Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation." The first four paragraphs attend to some of what I wrote (imo).

The fifth paragraph has this little statement, "The Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."

The sixth paragraph states, "It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture (seeming discrepancies between passages) against the teaching of Scripture about itself." (insert mine related to a previous sentence in that paragraph).​

The following years found the need to create the following document that is slightly related to the OP.
ICBI_2 is upon hermenutics.

There is a third document on Biblical Application can be found at ICBI_3.

In my opinion, these three documents are the framework every scholar should hang the shingle of proper understanding and teaching of Scriptures.

Hope this helps with were I got some of the thinking of what I wrote.

I tend to ramble, and have gone to making more of my posts a more outlined form to keep my writing a bit more focused.