Did Jesus embrace inerrancy?

Preach,
So if your saying the Bible is Inerrant, my understanding of that phrase is you believe it to be literally true and the guide to how we should live our lives. I need the definition defined before I talk about the verses you posted. Is this the case?
DB

 

DB let's be a little more considerate and orthodox. Let's encourage one another in righteousness!

Here is a couple of statements regarding the scripture:

The Bible is God's holy, inspired, inerrant Word. It is our complete and sufficient standard for life and faith. There are 66 books in the Bible. We reject any secondary standards, which impose themselves upon its sole authority. (From our church statement of faith)

The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.
John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Col. 21:18, 23; Mat. 15:9
VIII.
In this written Word God has plainly revealed whatsoever He has thought needful for us to know, believe, and acknowledge, touching the nature and office of Christ, in whom all the promises are Yea and Amen to the praise of God.
Acts 3:22, 23; Heb. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Cor. 1:20
(from the Baptist 1644 Confession)

Now let's consider also John 17, "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth."

God's Word (inerrant in its original manuscript and preserved through the ages) is all we need for life and godliness. So, the denial of inerrancy implies also the denial of (or resistance to) being sanctified.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: PreacherDave ]

 

PreachtheWord,

It is hilarious that not one of the verses on your list teach inerrancy. Even your prooftexts don't say what you want them to say

Daniel Payne

 

Temper, temper....

I simply pointed out that the verses you listed said nothing of inerrancy. There is no need to respond to them since they are off the topic of the title of this thread. Your rhetoric is a really sad attempt at defending inerrancy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How foolish of you! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you believe so strongly in inerrancy, you should also know that Christ said whoever calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire.

Daniel Payne

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: MarciontheModerateBaptist ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
If you believe so strongly in inerrancy, you should also know that Christ said whoever calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals know about the bible. It should not surprise me that a man who does not believe the bible knows very little about it, but, . . .

If you would actually read the passage in question you will see that Jesus has just given evidence of His being the Messiah, God in the flesh, Emmmanuel. The crowd is sceptical, and begin to mutter about Him being a fool for making such a claim, He then states that calling a fellow Jew a fool will put them in danger of the sanhedrin, but calling Him a fool, for making a claim to Deity, will place them in danger of Hell fire! It was JESUS they were saying "You fool" to!

 

No one who is critical of the fact that Jesus, Paul, and Peter is arguing anything substantive. What do these verses mean, if they do not support the inerrancy position? Instead of just sticking your tongue out at these verses, please give some heremeneutical justification for your belief if you maintain that Jesus did not believe in inerrancy.

 

I don't see a problem with the "Christ criterion" on the surface, but who knows what some tie to the concept. If they truly deny the OT and NT, that 'taint at all good, of course.

But the "Christ criterion" seems to just mean how Christ would act in a matter--you know, WWJD and all that sort of stuff.

If a matter is not directly addressed in Scripture, we can infer from how He acted in other similar instances to the given instance. For example, we might infer to given instances we face from instances Christ faced, e.g., Christ's driving out the money changers, or forgiving the woman caught in adultery. Plus, it would seem to take overall themes of His life and apply them--themes like mercy, grace, love, and truth. Those things certainly need to be informative in all we do. But the same certainly must be commensurate with Scripture.

[ February 25, 2002, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

Arent you guys glad that Joseph didnt embrace your innerancy posistion.

I would imagine he was familiar with Deuteronomy 22:23-24 but as the first Chapter of Mathew tells us even before his dream he was going against scripture and was going to dismiss her quietly.

Hmmm, sounds like Joseph instead of being a legalist planned to do what he thought was best for Mary and the unborn child in spite of what the inerrant scripture said.

Now since as someone said God is not the author of confusion don't you find it interesting that he chose someone to be the earthly father of Jesus who interpreted scripture "liberally"??

DB

 

From your rendering of this scenario, am I correct to say that IF Joseph HAD planned to follow the laws, that God COULD/WOULD not have confronted him in the dream to let him know that his wife-to-be was innocent of his suspicions?
Sorta' putting some strict limits on God, aren't you?

SO????
Just like all of us, Joseph was just a poor common, everyday, garden variety sinner.

Shows there's hope even for liberals!
(Just a little Christian brotherly jab here, nothing to take seriously!! )

 

What in the world does this have to do with inerrancy? Oh yeah - NOTHING.

Inerrancy means the Bible records all events and teaching without error. I won't go into the exegesis of why Joseph was not erring; but inerrancy has nothing to do with the recorded actions of men. The Bible also records the sinful actions and deeds of men, demons and satan: does that mean it errs? No, it records without error the deeds of fallen creatures, including elect prophets, priests and kings.

Your argument is no argument at all.

Did Jesus embrace inerrancy?

"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." (John 17:17)

 

Chris
Joseph did not follow what scripture told him to do. Mathew tells us that Joseph had worked out a plan to avoid public disgrace for Mary prior to his dream. At that time all he knew was that his fiance was with child. Since prior to his dream he had planned to dismiss her quietly, it seems that he had worked this out not according to the dictates of scripture but his heart. I imagine that prior to the dream he couldn't believe Mary when she told him she had not been with another. It is one of the few things we know about Joseph and makes me like him as a person.

If you refer back to the definitions of innerant that Preach The Word gave earlier we talked about how the scripture was to guide our lives in every way etc. I was just showing that Joseph disagreed. Of course that is my opinion.

Other than the fact that the earthly Father of Jesus didn't agree with it. (Unless you want to say the plan he had devised in Mathew 1:19 where it says he was a righteous man was sin) Pretty interesting considering he probably had access to the original autographs. Joseph must have been one of the first Baptists, you know getting out of line with Soul Freedom and interpretation.

Do you exclude Jesus from men in the above quote?
By the way I never meant to infer that Joseph was erring. In my opinion he was not. Even though he was not obeying the scriptures. (Original Autographs no less)

Thats a relief. I didn't even realize it was an argument. I find it interesting that a righteous man (prior to his dream would plan to disobey the inerrant scripture and Love someone else that much,) can't you imagine what his friends were saying or would have said or did say.

If so the scripture referred to below would have to pertain to the Old Testament since the New wasn't written when he said this. Is your position that Jesus believed the scriptures of what we call the OT were innerrant?

Truth and Fact are different Chris. Something can be true and not factual.

 

Truth and Fact are different Chris. Something can be true and not factual.</font>[/QUOTE]This statement confuses me. Could you explain, or give an example of something being true & not factual ?

 

I asked for some logical, Scriptural, reasonable arguments as to why moderates/liberals hold to their outlandish beliefs. All I get is some canard about Joseph's so-called doctrine of Scripture. I hope the moderators of this thread are watching, since this doesn't have one iota of relevance to the topic. Stop swinging at Dietrich's pitches in the dirt guys.

 

The story of Adam and Eve can be true - i.e. our sin separates us from God - without being factual (in this case historical).

This is the heart of the debate over inerrancy. Inerrantists are modernists who define their theology within the limits of rationalism. Before (and now after) the ascendancy of modernism, scripture could represent mythic truth without holding up to the scientific method.

Joshua