Inerrancy of scripture, can you convince a christian it is inerrant

I believe so. First, I would point out what inerrancy is not.
1) It is not the reader. Not the missinterpertations of the reader.
2) It is not the translation.
3) it is not any of the known variants from the original text handed down in their copies.

God Himself is inerrant.
So God's word is inerrant.
Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture as God's inerrant word when it was originally written by His human authors.
The documents and human authors where known to the God's people who first received them. And they made copies for fellow believers. And were passed down to us.

Psalms 119:89, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

Matthew 4:4, ". . . But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

2 Peter 1:21, ". . . For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. . . ."

2 Timothy 3:16, ". . . All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . . ."

 

What do you mean by inerrant?

You need to ask them whether they believe 2 Timothy 3:16 is true.

If they are ok with that, I don’t see what the problem is.

 

This person's faith is on shaky ground. If the original autographs contain even one error, then how can any of it be trusted? Of course, such a person may be looking for a reason to claim exactly that; that scripture is not the very Word of God. But even if they are looking for such an excuse, the problem is theirs. If they do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, I believe they imperil their profession of faith. Nothing will satisfy them.

Luke 16:29-31 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

@Scott Downey ask your sceptical friend as how he would explain to someone how to know God, what would he explain? Also have a clear answer yourself, should he ask you you what you would explain? Noting the need for inerrant Scripture from God Himself. Without which it is not something he can do.

 

I have studied the doctrine of inerrancy for quite some time.
It’s not a doctrine to causally discuss.
It’s not a simple doctrine but one that is quite nuanced.
Evangelical Christians hold a wide range of positions from a view that inerrancy is a critical doctrine to the view that inerrancy is an unnecessary doctrine.

I enjoy reading Peter Enns, he challenges my faith. He writes,

“I do not think inerrancy can be effectively nuanced to account for the Bible’s own behavior as a text produced in ancient cultures. In my view, inerrancy regularly functions to short-circuit rather than spark our knowledge of the Bible. Contrary to its intention to preserve the truthfulness of Scripture and the truth-telling God behind it, inerrancy prematurely shuts down rigorous inquiry into what the Bible’s “truthfulness” means, and so interrupts rather than fosters careful reading of Scripture. When inerrancy asks us to override the best historical and scientific inquiry with (what is taken to be) the plain teaching of Scripture, it also hinders us from addressing the more interesting, spiritually edifying, and lovely topic of what kind of a God we have, one who is willing to speak within the limitations of his audience. Indeed, despite its apparent interest in seeing God as so powerful that he can overrule ancient human error and ignorance, inerrancy portrays a weak view of God. It fails to be constrained by the Bible’s own witness of God’s pattern of working — that God’s power is made known in weakness, he reigns amidst human error and suffering, and he lovingly condescends to finite human culture. Ironically, inerrancy prevents us from grappling with the God of the Bible…” (Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy)
​

It’s not your friends view of inerrancy that bothers me, rather his belief that Scripture is not the inspired word of God.

Without the understanding that God has spoken to us there is little need to deal with the complications involved in discussing the doctrine of inerrancy.

Rob

 

Rob, are you at all concerned about Enns' views on creationism and his belief in the creation narrative in Genesis being akin to mythology? His positive opinion of the late Rachel Held-Evans' review of his book on inspiration concerns me. As you can tell, I am not a fan of Enns.

 

Also, Enns' association with BioLogos is quite troublesome. BioLogos likes to purport that it reconciles science and the latest advances in scholarship with biblical interpretation. Those are just codewords for evolutionary creation. Instead of deriving science from scripture, BioLogos foists its scientific agenda on scripture. Of course, that is my opinion but I am in good company. OK. Enough about Enns. His name is a trigger for theological and close personal reasons.

Regarding inerrancy, simply put it is the belief that scripture is without error in the original autographs. There should be no nuance in that. Also, there should be no disagreement among professing Christians on this issue. There may be nuance on interpretations, textual variants, and redactions, but if the starting point is not inerrant original autographs the entire Christian faith is built on sinking sand.

 

Oh yeah, Enn’s bothers me....
and not by the things you mention, quite a few other positions.
But that’s the point.
I like to be bothered by the thinking of others.
It makes me think more broadly; make me more accepting of other opinions.
Perhaps accepting isn’t the right word, ...it makes me more accepting of people who have other opinions when I know why they believe the way they do.

That being said, I read, enjoy and am persuaded by John H. Walton’s theology.
And I come from a science background.
So I don’t find BioLogos and evolutionary creationism troublesome at all.

You really need to read up on inerrancy, the book, Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy is a good starting point.

Rob

 

Rob, I have. I consider myself fairly well informed. I am not afraid of contrary viewpoints. I have read the works of raging heretics for apologetic purposes, although I would not recommend that for every believer.

My problems with BioLogos are more than their belief in evolutionary creation. If you go through their list of fellows you will notice a number of liberal theologians whose theological errors make their creation beliefs look minor. Also, their approach to the scientific method is flawed from the start. As I said in my previous post, BioLogos interprets scripture through science as contrasted to viewing scripture as revealing science. That is a major hermeneutical faux pas.

 

Well we’ve ventured into an area that has provoked me to study inerrancy widely, that being creationism.

This topic alone has caused many to fall from the faith, particularly in the last 150 to 200 years.
The Bible appears to take one side, empirical science, another.

How do these two interact and what are we to do with them?
Why are people leaving the faith after encountering this and similar conundrums?

Part of the problem is organizations that promote young earth creationism as the only option, others views being flawed, filled with theological err, and apostates.

Is there a better way to convince someone searching for answers that the Bible just isn’t that answer?

IMO, a better way is to encourage dialogue, allow open minded discussions and a freedom to express a hearty exploratory theological debate.

I’ve been a member of an independent Baptist church since... well, a long time.
I’ve had to rein-in my thoughts and beliefs, holding my tongue at rank, sour, poorly presented 6 day creationism that taints the interpretation of Genesis, and much of the Bible. It frustrates me not to be able to counter it with a meaningful interpretation from another view, but that’s the environment of today’s church.

Back to the opening posts question, if you want to encourage a believer to believe the Bible is inerrant, allow a person to explore it, allow people to range far and wide. Teach BASIC doctrine and express the different viewpoints that others may have taken along the way. Let a person have the freedom to choose (gee, now we’ve ventured into freedom of the will ).

Well, enough, the grandkids are stirring.

Rob

 

Scott: "And for an example [of biblical error] he brought up Paul's conversion .

Acts 9:7 "And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.
in comparison to Acts 22: 9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me."

For me this is not a problem with inerrancy. For him it proves scripture has errors so it can not be the Word of God alone, just the inspired Word written by a man about an event."

Your friend is correct: Luke's 2 versions of Paul's conversion contradict each other in 2 ways: (1) one version implies that his companions saw the light and the other refutes that; one version claims that they heard the heavenly voice and the other refutes that. Luke's memory failure obviously creates the error. The Bible contains many errors far more serious than that one.

Scott: "And how [then] can Scripture then be absolute truth?"

Profound but appropriate question! My quest for the best answer compelled me to go to Fuller Seminary. Then when my honest doubts were not addressed there, I transferred to Princeton (MDiv) and then got my doctorate in New Testament, Judaism, and Greco-Roman backgrounds at Harvard. All that training made me aware of just how many errors the Bible contains. Yet my intimate relationship with Christ was and is my most treasured possession and I was unwilling to give that up. So what could I do about the valid slippery slope argument against the Domino theory of Scripture? That theory argues that if you can't accept all of Scripture, you can't trust any of it. Well, I began with the realization that the Bible is NOT the Word of God; rather, it becomes the Word of God when the Holy Spirit illumines its spiritual truths and helps us apply these to our lives. To read the Bible without the Spirit's guidance does the seeker little spiritual good. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the LIVES of the biblical writers is available to inspire us with the truths revealed to them.

I loved God and Christ far too much to settle for the comfort of biblical inerrancy over the truth of just how human and culturally conditioned the Bible is. So I resolved to resist the sin of bibliolatry and refused to crucify my intellect and mindlessly treat the Bible as the working construct for my life that gives my life comfortable meaning. My realization of biblical errors merely increased my passion to discover and connect with the real God who inspired the lives of biblical authors.

I also took comfort in these 3 realizations:
(1) The Bible never even claims to be inerrant. For example, the claim in 2 Timothy 3:16 that the Bible is "God-breathed" ("theopneustos") uses a common Greek term for describing inspired secular writing and does not literally mean what it seems to mean. Indeed, the scholarly consensus has made a compelling case that the Pastoral Epistles (including 2 Timothy) are pseudonymous and that fact alone invests them with false pretense.

(2) Consider how the Pastoral epistles resort to the most shameless ethnic and sexual stereotypes:
(a) 1 Timothy 2:11-15 prohibits women from teaching or exercising authority over men, but on false and immoral grounds:
Pseudo-Paul implies that the creation of woman was an afterthought (2:13) and by implication women don't rate a leadership role. Worse, Pseudo-Paul implies that women are more gullible than men and therefore morally inferior because Eve (not Adam) was deceived by the Serpent in Eden (2:14). This claim is not only disgustingly sexist; it is false: in fact Adam was present during the deception, but never spoke up: "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate (Genesis 3:6)." The author's sexist bigotry merely reflects the appalling Jewish stereotypes of women in late antiquity: e.g.
"Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good (Sirach 42:14--in the Catholic OT)."
(b) Titus 1:12-13 shamefully embraces that ethnic stereotype that "all Cretans are liars." We rightly dismiss the harmful racist stereotypes that all Blacks are lazy and that all Jews are greedy money-grubbers.

(3) The Bible never even claims to be divinely inspired. NT allusions to divine inspiration refer to the OT. True, 2 Peter 3:16 (itself pseudonymous by scholarly consensus) refers to unidentified Pauline epistles as "graphe," which means writings. But at most that refers to some epistles, not to the whole NT, and it says nothing about divine inspiration.

Scott: "He also believes men chose what scriptures to place in the bible apart from God having any choice in the matter, because if God chose what the bible scriptures should be, that is God imposing on man against the free will."

Obviously you have never read an academically respected book on the biblical canon like Robert M. Grant's "The Formation of the New Testament" or Hans van Campenhausen's "The Formation of the Christian Bible." If you had, you'd realize:
(1) that there is no evidence that the OT canon had been closed in Jesus day.
(a) Indeed, the Sadducees considered the Pentateuch more authoritative than the Prophets and the Writings.
(b) Paul uses the OT citation formula "It is written" to set up his quotation of the Apocalypse of Elijah in 1 Corinthians 2:9 and (c) Jude treats 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative revelation. No, this is NOT a quotation of some lost version of Isaiah 64:4, which has similar wording, but makes a different point.
(d) Outside Palestine, Jews considered as Scripture the books that were later included in the Catholic OT.
Outside Palestine, Jews considered what is now the Catholic OT Apocrypha to be Scripture.
(1) that in the first few centuries there was widespread disagreement on which Christian books should be treated as Scripture.

 

The men with Saul heard the voice and did not understand what the voice said to Saul. So like the usage of "hear" in the expression, " hearing they hear not." And so the two true accounts. A case of readers misinterpreting the two texts do to one word having a different usage. To hear a sound of a voice versus hear, that is, understand what a voice said.

 

"The men who were with me stood speechless because they heard the voice, but saw no one (9:7)."
"Now those who were with me saw the light, but did not hear the voice that was speaking to me 22:9)."

37818 and Scott Downey nicely illustrate the forced exegesis that is required in a misguided attempt to defend biblical inerrancy.
Their harmonization can be refuted by 2 decisive observations:
(1) Their reconciliation ducks the contradiction between "they saw no one" (9:7) and "they saw the light" (22:9).
(2) They overlook the fact that "they heard the voice" (9:7) and "they did not hear the voice" (22:9) use the same terminology in a way that Luke gets his facts backwards in a later memory lapse. If Luke wanted to imply that Paul's companions did not hear in the sense that they did not understand, he would have said so. All the examples cited in the prior posts contain this distinction between hearing and understanding and that establishes the contradiction.

Notice also that 37818 and Scott duck the rest of my thread refuting the inerrancy doctrine. For me, if I must be intellectually dishonest to maintain my faith in Christ, I am no longer loving him with all my mind as Jesus requires (Mark 12:30, etc.).

 

No. Not forced, The usage of the language in the case cited. ". . . seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, . . ." Jesus used in argument for why he taught using parables, Matthew 13:13. My point, unless the alleged contradictions cannot be explicily shown to be do to one of more of these three known causes, interpretation, error caused by translation or know textual issues. Errancy is caused by sush things. Now if you have an exception.

 

He also holds to an accommodation view regarding Jesus doesn't he?

 

he does not seem though to see the scriptures as being inspired in an infallible matter, as he holds to Myth and seems to allow for Jesus to be accommodating to His cultural norms and understandings!