Inerrancy

[Aaron]

I am somewhere between Full and Absolute inerrancy.

God wasn't being poetic when He revealed Creation Week to Moses.

 

[Deacon]

God wasn't being poetic when He revealed Creation Week to Moses.

Even in the very first chapter of the Bible there are an uncountable number of (mutually incompatible) interpretations going back thousands of years by believers who accepted the FULL AUTHORITY of Scripture.

Believers, even believers on the BaptistBoard (yeah, I know that’s hard to believe) can have opposing views about what Scripture communicates.

Conclusion:
(1) the Bible is inerrant because it originates with God.
(2) different interpretations/views do not change the inerrancy of Scripture.

Why are there different interpretations? Thousands of reasons! But we all bring different views and ideas to Scripture when we study it.

So to tame the diversity we set some rules (limits) about what we observe about Scripture.

There can no longer be any simple definition of inerrancy. It has been nuanced in all recent Systematic Theology texts - as even Errickson’s text has shown in the opening post.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has almost 20 affirmations/denials to clarify (put limits upon) the application of inerrancy.

Rob

 

[Aaron]

Even in the very first chapter of the Bible there are an uncountable number of (mutually incompatible) interpretations going back thousands of years by believers who accepted the FULL AUTHORITY of Scripture.

Believers, even believers on the BaptistBoard (yeah, I know that’s hard to believe) can have opposing views about what Scripture communicates.

Conclusion:
(1) the Bible is inerrant because it originates with God.
(2) different interpretations/views do not change the inerrancy of Scripture.

Why are there different interpretations? Thousands of reasons! But we all bring different views and ideas to Scripture when we study it.

So to tame the diversity we set some rules (limits) about what we observe about Scripture.

There can no longer be any simple definition of inerrancy. It has been nuanced in all recent Systematic Theology texts - as even Errickson’s text has shown in the opening post.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has almost 20 affirmations/denials to clarify (put limits upon) the application of inerrancy.

Rob

Does that apply to the Resurrection of Christ? No? Then that doesn't apply to Genesis.

 

[Van]

Inerrancy is about the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, and not the COPIES!

True but denied by KJVO folks

 

[Deacon]

From Michael Horton's Systematic Theology, Pilgrim Theology

How would you classify the following statement under the topic of the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture:

Absolute, Full, or Limited Inerrancy?

There are a few important points to mention on this topic.
First, inerrancy pertains to the original autographs. We do not say that our translations of the original texts (or even that the original-language copies available to us) are inspired and inerrant. In fact, they do contain errors of various kinds. However, the immense number of ancient copies allows textual scholars to determine the original reading with near certainty.

Second, inerrancy does not cancel human agency in the least; in other words, it does not entail a mechanical theory of dictation.

Third, inerrancy does not mean that the human authors were omniscient or perfect in their understanding. Indeed, they openly exhibit their finitude and fallibility. The biblical writers assumed a cosmology that is quite different from our own, but it is not their cultural assumptions but their affirmations that we receive as God’s word. In fact, there are many examples of prophets and apostles acknowledging their own errors of judgment and practice. ...

...Fourth, inerrancy does not mean that the human authors were exhaustive or exact.

Michael Horton, Pilgrim Theology: Core Doctrines for Christian Disciples (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 58.
​

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

Third, inerrancy does not mean that the human authors were omniscient or perfect in their understanding. Indeed, they openly exhibit their finitude and fallibility. The biblical writers assumed a cosmology that is quite different from our own, but it is not their cultural assumptions but their affirmations that we receive as God’s word. In fact, there are many examples of prophets and apostles acknowledging their own errors of judgment and practice. ...


​

Rob

And this is the sad part of his view.

 

[JesusFan]

I lean toward a limited inerrancy.

"The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms."

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 259.​

Erickson calls this "full inerrancy" but it tastes and smells like "limited inerrancy" to me.
Compare his definition of inerrancy (above) with his definitions of Limited Inerrancy (below):

The Bible’s scientific and historical references reflect the understanding current at the time it was written.

The Bible writers were subject to the limitations of their time

For the purposes for which the Bible was given, it is fully truthful and inerrant

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 249.​

Rob

So you would hold that the writers of the scriptures were led to record down some mistakes and errors in some areas, or else they were allowed to accommodate views of their time, such as Jesus was not really casting out demons, as people did not know had mental illnesses instead?

 

[JesusFan]

And this is the sad part of his view.

And this blasts wide open the door to those who wish to rewrite paul as being Homophobe, or he misunderstood women leadership issues!

 

[JesusFan]

There are generally three differing views of inerrancy. There may be some variations along the way by some but which view do you hold to more closely and why scriptural foundation do you have for holding to your view.

Absolute Inerrancy - "holds that the Bible, which includes rather detailed treatment of matter both scientific and historical, is fully true. The impression is conveyed that the biblical writers intended to give a considerable number of exact scientific and historical data. Thus, apparent discrepancies can and must be explained."

Full Inerrancy - "also holds that the Bible is completely true. While the Bible does not primarily aim to give scientific and historical data, such scientific and historical assertions as it does make are fully true. There is no essential difference between this position and absolute inerrancy in terms of their view of the religious/theological/spiritual message. The understanding of the scientific and historical references is quite different., however. Full inerrancy regards those phenomenal; that is, they are reported the way they appear to the human eye. They are not necessarily exact; rather, they are popular descriptions, often involving general references or approximations."

Limited Inerrancy - "also regards the Bible as inerrant and infallible in its salvific doctrinal references. A distinction is drawn, however, between nonempirical, revealed matters on the one hand, and empirical , natural references on the other hand. the Bible's scientific and historical references reflect the understanding current at the time it was written. the Bible writers were subject to the limitations of their time. Revelation and inspiration did not raise the writers above ordinary knowledge. God did not reveal science or history to them. Consequently, the Bible may well contains what we would term errors in these areas. This, however, is of no great consequence, since the Bible does not purport to teach science and history. For the purposes in which it was given, it is fully truthful and inerrant."

Source:
Erickson, Millard. 2013. Christian Theology. Third edition. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Academic. (Orig. pub. 1983.).

In-text citation: (Erickson [1983] 2013, 191–92)

Absolute Inerrancy for Originals, and full infallibility for valid translations