Infallability of God's word

[Revmitchell]

For a man to live successfully, he must have an ultimate standing ground; every philosophy is authoritarian, in that, while it may attack savagely all other doctrines of authority, it does so from the vantage point of a new authority. This new authority is a basic pretheoretical presupposition which is in totality religious and which rests on a particular concept of infallibility.

Every man has his platform from which he speaks. To affirm that foundation without qualification is an inescapable requirement of human thought. It is a naive and foolish error to assume that “deliverance” from the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture “frees” a man’s mind from the concept of infallibility. Rather, it means the adoption of a new infallibility as a rival and supposedly liberating concept….

Infallibility is thus an inescapable concept. What we face today is not an abandonment of the doctrine of infallibility, but its transfer from God to man, from God’s word to man’s word….

To deny the infallibility of the word of God is inescapably to deny the God of Scripture. When the omnipotent God speaks, His word is of necessity infallible. This is the only kind of word that God can declare. Because God is God, it is utterly impossible for God ever to speak a word which is not infallible.

Source:

Rousas J. Rushdoony, Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1978), pp. 4, 6, 7.


What say you?

 

[Crabtownboy]

To deny the infallibility of the word of God is inescapably to deny the God of Scripture. When the omnipotent God speaks, His word is of necessity infallible. This is the only kind of word that God can declare. Because God is God, it is utterly impossible for God ever to speak a word which is not infallible.

As I see it, it is not the infallibility of God or God's word that is the problem. Rather it is the fallibility of our understanding and interpretation that is the problem.

 

[Revmitchell]

As I see it, it is not the infallibility of God or God's word that is the problem. Rather it is the fallibility of our understanding and interpretation that is the problem.

How does that statement line up with your previous statement that the Bible is "just a book of words"?

 

[Crabtownboy]

How does that statement line up with your previous statement that the Bible is "just a book of words"?

It is a book of words. I have yet to hear a printed Bible speak outloud. If a printed Bible were not a book of words you could not read it.

But it is a record of God's words to man. As I said the problem is in the understanding and interpreting of those words.

Nice attempt to bait me. But you took my words out of context.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is a book of words. I have yet to hear a printed Bible speak outloud. If a printed Bible were not a book of words you could not read it.

But it is a record of God's words to man. As I said the problem is in the understanding and interpreting of those words.

Nice attempt to bait me. But you took my words out of context.

Actually I will be glad to go bring up your words if you like. But you used the word "just" in reference to holding experience equal to or higher than scripture. Refering to the Bible as "a book of words" itself diminishes its importance under any context. Baiting is your tactic. Your original post is contrary to your past words. Knowing that I wanted to know how you line them up. Nothing baiting about that.

 

[MB]

For a man to live successfully, he must have an ultimate standing ground; every philosophy is authoritarian, in that, while it may attack savagely all other doctrines of authority, it does so from the vantage point of a new authority. This new authority is a basic pretheoretical presupposition which is in totality religious and which rests on a particular concept of infallibility.

Every man has his platform from which he speaks. To affirm that foundation without qualification is an inescapable requirement of human thought. It is a naive and foolish error to assume that “deliverance” from the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture “frees” a man’s mind from the concept of infallibility. Rather, it means the adoption of a new infallibility as a rival and supposedly liberating concept….

Infallibility is thus an inescapable concept. What we face today is not an abandonment of the doctrine of infallibility, but its transfer from God to man, from God’s word to man’s word….

To deny the infallibility of the word of God is inescapably to deny the God of Scripture. When the omnipotent God speaks, His word is of necessity infallible. This is the only kind of word that God can declare. Because God is God, it is utterly impossible for God ever to speak a word which is not infallible.

Source:

Rousas J. Rushdoony, Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1978), pp. 4, 6, 7.


What say you?

I read a simular post on another web site advocating the KJV. The poster wanted to know how many felt the bible in there hands was infalible.

I would say that if a man doesn't hold up one version as infalible so as to have a final authority on God's word he could become lost in the many different versions there are for a final word on anyone subject. No two are saying the exact same thing.
MB

 

[Timsings]

. . . To deny the infallibility of the word of God is inescapably to deny the God of Scripture. When the omnipotent God speaks, His word is of necessity infallible. This is the only kind of word that God can declare. Because God is God, it is utterly impossible for God ever to speak a word which is not infallible.

Source:

Rousas J. Rushdoony, Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1978), pp. 4, 6, 7.


What say you?

I say that these are separate issues. I have no problem affirming that God is infallible or that God's word is infallible. I am not convinced that the Bible as we have it is infallible.

Tim Reynolds

 

[ReformedBaptist]

For a man to live successfully, he must have an ultimate standing ground; every philosophy is authoritarian, in that, while it may attack savagely all other doctrines of authority, it does so from the vantage point of a new authority. This new authority is a basic pretheoretical presupposition which is in totality religious and which rests on a particular concept of infallibility.

Every man has his platform from which he speaks. To affirm that foundation without qualification is an inescapable requirement of human thought. It is a naive and foolish error to assume that “deliverance” from the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture “frees” a man’s mind from the concept of infallibility. Rather, it means the adoption of a new infallibility as a rival and supposedly liberating concept….

Infallibility is thus an inescapable concept. What we face today is not an abandonment of the doctrine of infallibility, but its transfer from God to man, from God’s word to man’s word….

To deny the infallibility of the word of God is inescapably to deny the God of Scripture. When the omnipotent God speaks, His word is of necessity infallible. This is the only kind of word that God can declare. Because God is God, it is utterly impossible for God ever to speak a word which is not infallible.

Source:

Rousas J. Rushdoony, Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1978), pp. 4, 6, 7.


What say you?

I think he makes an interesting point about infallibility. And yes, I agree that the Holy Scriptures are the infallible Word of God. They are infallible because they are the very speaking of God. That the Scriptures are made of language, words, et. no one with a sane mind would deny. Yet the infallibility and innerancy of Scripture extends to the very tense and breathing stroke of the original language. As the KJV puts it..every joy and tittle.

I find it the very height of absuridty to suppose that the necessary revelation of Holy Scripture would not be kept pure and preserved throughout all ages. Mankind is not able by the light of nature to find that knowledge necessary for their salvation. It is "the Law of the Lord" that is perfect, "converting the soul." It is the special revelation of Scripture that gives to mankind that knowledge. The necesssity of the redemption of mankind necessistates redemptive revelation. And for the better preserving of this revelation against the corruption that is in mankind through sin, God saw fit that the revelation be committed to Scripture.

When we read and hear the Scriptures, and when they are being preached, we are reading and hearing the living Word of God, the very speaking of God. We ought to do so with fear and trembling.

RB

 

[rdwhite]

So, as I read this, the consensus is that God was able to inspire his words, but not able to preserve them. Why would an all powerful, all knowing God, inspire his words in infallibility, if he had no intention of preserving them? That makes no sense, that would be foolish. Why would he do that?

No sir, my God, the most high God, not only inspired his words, but he preserved them. By faith, the Bible I hold in my hands is infallible, inspired, and preserved. It is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

"When the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the devil" Billy Sunday

Modern scholars (and quasi-scholars) pick and choose from multitudes of Greek and Hebrew versions, modern language translations, creating their own version, determining for themselves the right translation, becoming their own authority, and stand in judgment of what they believe God said. They have no authority other than their own scholarship.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So, as I read this, the consensus is that God was able to inspire his words, but not able to preserve them. Why would an all powerful, all knowing God, inspire his words in infallibility, if he had no intention of preserving them? That makes no sense, that would be foolish. Why would he do that?

No sir, my God, the most high God, not only inspired his words, but he preserved them. By faith, the Bible I hold in my hands is infallible, inspired, and preserved. It is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

"When the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the devil" Billy Sunday

Modern scholars (and quasi-scholars) pick and choose from multitudes of Greek and Hebrew versions, modern language translations, creating their own version, determining for themselves the right translation, becoming their own authority, and stand in judgment of what they believe God said. They have no authority other than their own scholarship.

I am sure you didn't mean to include me in that consensus as I wrote,

"I find it the very height of absuridty to suppose that the necessary revelation of Holy Scripture would not be kept pure and preserved throughout all ages. "

 

[rdwhite]

I am sure you didn't mean to include me in that consensus as I wrote,

"I find it the very height of absuridty to suppose that the necessary revelation of Holy Scripture would not be kept pure and preserved throughout all ages. "

If the shoe don't fit, don't put it on.

........

Hey, ReformedBaptist, I've been gone for several days. Wow, amazing how much is posted on this board in such a short time. I will probably take a week to catch up :tonofbricks:

 

[Revmitchell]

I think he makes an interesting point about infallibility. And yes, I agree that the Holy Scriptures are the infallible Word of God. They are infallible because they are the very speaking of God. That the Scriptures are made of language, words, et. no one with a sane mind would deny. Yet the infallibility and innerancy of Scripture extends to the very tense and breathing stroke of the original language. As the KJV puts it..every joy and tittle.

I find it the very height of absuridty to suppose that the necessary revelation of Holy Scripture would not be kept pure and preserved throughout all ages. Mankind is not able by the light of nature to find that knowledge necessary for their salvation. It is "the Law of the Lord" that is perfect, "converting the soul." It is the special revelation of Scripture that gives to mankind that knowledge. The necesssity of the redemption of mankind necessistates redemptive revelation. And for the better preserving of this revelation against the corruption that is in mankind through sin, God saw fit that the revelation be committed to Scripture.

When we read and hear the Scriptures, and when they are being preached, we are reading and hearing the living Word of God, the very speaking of God. We ought to do so with fear and trembling.

RB

What are your thoughts on his assertion that we all have an inerrant authority. If it is not scripture then it is man made?

 

[Deacon]

For a man to live successfully, he must have an ultimate standing ground; every philosophy is authoritarian, in that, while it may attack savagely all other doctrines of authority, it does so from the vantage point of a new authority. This new authority is a basic pretheoretical presupposition which is in totality religious and which rests on a particular concept of infallibility.

Every man has his platform from which he speaks. To affirm that foundation without qualification is an inescapable requirement of human thought. It is a naive and foolish error to assume that “deliverance” from the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture “frees” a man’s mind from the concept of infallibility. Rather, it means the adoption of a new infallibility as a rival and supposedly liberating concept….
Infallibility is thus an inescapable concept.

Let's make this rambling paragraph more simple, the author says that everyone has a worldview that is based upon something.
His insertion of the idea of infallibility is dubious.
Today we encounter postmodernism.
Postmodernism is an anti-foundational worldview.
It doesn't believe in absolutes and affirms that objective truth is at best, difficullt to discern or impossible to achieve.
A postmodernist lives in the sand and lives there successfully, freed from any notion of infallibility.

What we face today is not an abandonment of the doctrine of infallibility, but its transfer from God to man, from God’s word to man’s word….

To deny the infallibility of the word of God is inescapably to deny the God of Scripture. When the omnipotent God speaks, His word is of necessity infallible. This is the only kind of word that God can declare. Because God is God, it is utterly impossible for God ever to speak a word which is not infallible.
What say you?

What we face is an abandonment of God.
This has been going on since the first human sinned, it's nothing new or unique to the times.

Without saying it, the authors insertion of the concept of infallibility provides a weak support for the arcane idea that a single version might claim to be fully preserved, thus infallible.
Some here seem to have bit this idea.
What the author really means (in far fewer words) is that mans philosophies and God's truth don't mix.

Rob

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What are your thoughts on his assertion that we all have an inerrant authority. If it is not scripture then it is man made?

You had to point out that part that I purposefuly left out. lol

I am not sure that this is true. The reason being is that there is philosophy that is antagonistic to the very idea of truth. If there is no truth, how can there be anything infallible? Of course, such reasoning is ciruclar so perhaps the relativists relativism is his ground of infallibility.

So, I am not sure about this idea. But Rushdoony makes good points which seem to be advocating inerrancy and infallibility. I am not familiar with the man's beliefs though.

 

[Revmitchell]

Today we encounter postmodernism.

Today we encounter some who have a postmodern view.

Postmodernism is an anti-foundational worldview.
It doesn't believe in absolutes and affirms that objective truth is at best, difficullt to discern or impossible to achieve.

Kind of like open theism

A postmodernist lives in the sand and lives there successfully, freed from any notion of infallibility.

Is that statement infallable?

Without saying it, the authors insertion of the concept of infallibility provides a weak support for the arcane idea that a single version might claim to be fully preserved, thus infallible.

This is adding to his words. At no time does any single version get mentioned nor is it needful to do so.