Inspiration/Infallibility/Inerrancy: To Be or Not To Be?

[Yeshua1]

Yes!!!!! Lots of false converts do not believe in a fully inerrant bible. Lots of progressives that claim to be Christian but really are children of Satan do not believe in a fully inerrant bible.

There are though some real Christians who do hold to limited inspiration views....

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you consider a belief in "a full inerrant bible" to be a fundamental necessity for salvation? In other words, without this belief can a person really be saved?

No, but the trick aspect of this is that unless we have an inerrant/infallible scripture, than on what basis can we know for sure that the gospel and jesus are who they claimed to be?

 

[JonC]

No, but the trick aspect of this is that unless we have an inerrant/infallible scripture, than on what basis can we know for sure that the gospel and jesus are who they claimed to be?

I know because I was saved through that gospel.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No, but the trick aspect of this is that unless we have an inerrant/infallible scripture, than on what basis can we know for sure that the gospel and jesus are who they claimed to be?

By your question you indicate that complete intellectual certainty is required to enter into a relationship with Jesus.

If we were to draw a parallel to ordinary human things, do you demand complete certainty that everything and everyone you know is exactly what you think they are before you act? Nope. We all live by faith to some degree and we enter into relationships and discover whether or not that person is what they appeared to be.

 

[AndyMartin]

There are though some real Christians who do hold to limited inspiration views....

sadly that is true...they shall not be condemned for this, as their salvation is based on their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

By your question you indicate that complete intellectual certainty is required to enter into a relationship with Jesus.

If we were to draw a parallel to ordinary human things, do you demand complete certainty that everything and everyone you know is exactly what you think they are before you act? Nope. We all live by faith to some degree and we enter into relationships and discover whether or not that person is what they appeared to be.

I am just suggesting that without having an infallible witness in the scriptures, by what basis would we seed the Gopspel as being able to save us? Not logically consistent...

 

[Yeshua1]

I know because I was saved through that gospel.

yes, but when we see the scriptures as only limited inspiration,does that not allow for errors and misunderstandings creep in?

 

[AndyMartin]

I remember some 25 years ago, I was discussing the Inspiration of the Bible with my senior manager, who was a born-again Christian. He said that he did not hold to the entire Bible being the Inspired Word of God. After much discussion that was going nowhere, I decided to write to him. I asked him simple one thing. If he held to a limited Inspiration, then how can he be sure which parts of the Bible are Inspired, and which are not. I said, when Jesus says, "you must be born again", and "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life", and His promises of eternal life to those who believe in Him. How can we really be sure that these words are Inspired? He could not answer this. Full Inspiration is the ONLY possibility for any Bible-believing Christian, in the original autographs. God is not able to lie or mislead us, and therefore His Word, the Holy Bible must also reflect His Perfections.

 

[Yeshua1]

I remember some 25 years ago, I was discussing the Inspiration of the Bible with my senior manager, who was a born-again Christian. He said that he did not hold to the entire Bible being the Inspired Word of God. After much discussion that was going nowhere, I decided to write to him. I asked him simple one thing. If he held to a limited Inspiration, then how can he be sure which parts of the Bible are Inspired, and which are not. I said, when Jesus says, "you must be born again", and "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life", and His promises of eternal life to those who believe in Him. How can we really be sure that these words are Inspired? He could not answer this. Full Inspiration is the ONLY possibility for any Bible-believing Christian, in the original autographs. God is not able to lie or mislead us, and therefore His Word, the Holy Bible must also reflect His Perfections.

Hey phrase here is "the original autographs", for it does not mean what KJVO purport it to mean...

 

[AndyMartin]

Hey phrase here is "the original autographs", for it does not mean what KJVO purport it to mean...

Yes, it does not mean any version in any language, as these do contain errors, like copyist, transmission, omission (both accidental and deliberate), etc. No version can claim to be the Word of God, not even the LXX.

 

[JonC]

yes, but when we see the scriptures as only limited inspiration,does that not allow for errors and misunderstandings creep in?

I believe so.

But the question which started this thread was never about inerrancy. It was connected to a comment Andy Stanley made against using "the Bible says so" as a proof to the lost in evangelism in favor of presenting the gospel message through the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels. Stanley claims to hold a position of inerrancy but believe the lost do not (and therefore inserting this truth into the gospel message creates an unnecessary obstacle to the lost).

 

[AndyMartin]

I believe so.

But the question which started this thread was never about inerrancy. It was connected to a comment Andy Stanley made against using "the Bible says so" as a proof to the lost in evangelism in favor of presenting the gospel message through the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels. Stanley claims to hold a position of inerrancy but believe the lost do not (and therefore inserting this truth into the gospel message creates an unnecessary obstacle to the lost).

I can't see how Stanley can say that he holds to inerrancy of the Bible, when He casts doubts on the Adam and Eve account, says that it is not important whether the Virgin Birth as recorded in the Gospels is true, or not. Inerrancy means basically, that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching". ALL means ALL

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am just suggesting that without having an infallible witness in the scriptures, by what basis would we seed the Gopspel as being able to save us? Not logically consistent...

One of the things that is confusing me is that you are using "infallible" and "inerrant" are synonyms.

Also, "the gospel" doesn't save us, but rather, Jesus saves us.

Even if the scriptures were fallible, that still does not mean that Jesus cannot save us.

I was on a business trip on the East Coast this last week and my iPhone GPS mapping apps (both Siri and Google) kept giving me bad information in certain areas of town because, apparently, my cell service carrier had some gaps in tower coverage in the city. I ended up going in a few circles until I realized what was happening, but used the overall map scheme to find my way to the airport without too much difficulty. One who is committed to knowing the truth can find Jesus EVEN IF the scriptures are fallible or they have no access to scripture at all.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Yes, it does not mean any version in any language, as these do contain errors, like copyist, transmission, omission (both accidental and deliberate), etc. No version can claim to be the Word of God, not even the LXX.

So you are actually saying that we do not possess an inerrant Bible today.

That kind of throws the demand that there be inerrant scriptures in the waste bin.

 

[JonC]

I can't see how Stanley can say that he holds to inerrancy of the Bible, when He casts doubts on the Adam and Eve account, says that it is not important whether the Virgin Birth as recorded in the Gospels is true, or not. Inerrancy means basically, that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching". ALL means ALL

Yet he says that he does. Stanley is not my responsibility. Perhaps I lean more to giving the man the benefit of the doubt and taking him at his word (even if his explanations seem cloudy) because I have seen too many good men slandered, hurt, and ruined by other good men with good intentions.

Our best course of action against potential heresy is to teach the truth, not go on the attack.

 

[Reynolds]

I go to a certain doctor three times a week. We have become friends and talk quite a bit. We began talking about God, culture, the Bible, and Jesus over a year ago. He does not believe the Bible is The inspired Word of God. I asked Him What he did believe. He said he believed Jesus was a good man but "He was more like a hippy, loving and accepting everybody instead of condemning everybody." I really had to work hard to not tell him he was an idiot, heretic, vile sinner, and going to Hell. I didn't. I asked him if he believed the New Testament was true? He said he believed it was "very historically accurate." A couple weeks later. I asked him if he knew the story of the woman caught in adultery. He did not. I told it to him and put particular emphasis on the "sin no more" part. He then decided that maybe Jesus was not a hippy and Jesus did adhere to a stricter moral standard than he had thought. As time has gone on, he is accepting a lot of the O.T. and is truly becoming a seeker. I think I will eventually be able to lead him to Christ. Had I shut him down at his first heretical statements, the discussions would have ended.

 

[AndyMartin]

I go to a certain doctor three times a week. We have become friends and talk quite a bit. We began talking about God, culture, the Bible, and Jesus over a year ago. He does not believe the Bible is The inspired Word of God. I asked Him What he did believe. He said he believed Jesus was a good man but "He was more like a hippy, loving and accepting everybody instead of condemning everybody." I really had to work hard to not tell him he was an idiot, heretic, vile sinner, and going to Hell. I didn't. I asked him if he believed the New Testament was true? He said he believed it was "very historically accurate." A couple weeks later. I asked him if he knew the story of the woman caught in adultery. He did not. I told it to him and put particular emphasis on the "sin no more" part. He then decided that maybe Jesus was not a hippy and Jesus did adhere to a stricter moral standard than he had thought. As time has gone on, he is accepting a lot of the O.T. and is truly becoming a seeker. I think I will eventually be able to lead him to Christ. Had I shut him down at his first heretical statements, the discussions would have ended.

No one here is saying that we witness to the lost by calling them names! There is a huge difference between a lost person, who knows nothing of the Truth of the Bible, and a so-called "pastor" of one of the biggest churches in the world, who mocks Adam and Eve and questions the Truth of the Virgin Birth!

 

[AndyMartin]

So you are actually saying that we do not possess an inerrant Bible today.

That kind of throws the demand that there be inerrant scriptures in the waste bin.

No it does not. The whole question of inerrancy is of the original autographs as written by the actual writers of the Books of the Bible. There is no way that any "translation" can claim this, as there are parts to each "version" of the Bible, that are not part of the original. Lets take a couple of examples. the longer ending of Mark's Gospel as found in the King James, has been shown by the great textual critic, John Burgon, to be part of his Gospel. Most modern versions either fully omit this (verse 9-20), or have the words in brackets, with some note about the textual evidence for it. then we have the woman found in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, which again is found in the KJV, but not some later versions. Even though the oldest surviving Greek manuscript that does contain these words, is not till the 6th century A.D., yet the scholar Jerome (responsible for the Latin Vulgate) says over 100 years earlier, that this passage was found in "many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin". For these examples, like others, there is a clear difference in how the passages read, which one can claim to be the "original" reading, and therefore "inerrant"?

 

[AndyMartin]

Yet he says that he does. Stanley is not my responsibility. Perhaps I lean more to giving the man the benefit of the doubt and taking him at his word (even if his explanations seem cloudy) because I have seen too many good men slandered, hurt, and ruined by other good men with good intentions.

Our best course of action against potential heresy is to teach the truth, not go on the attack.

Its not about going on the attack, but standing up for Bible Truth against those who distort and undermine its "Foundation" by making false claims about what it says. It makes no difference whether the person is a John Doe, or the greatest pastor or scholar!

 

[AndyMartin]

One of the things that is confusing me is that you are using "infallible" and "inerrant" are synonyms.

Also, "the gospel" doesn't save us, but rather, Jesus saves us.

Even if the scriptures were fallible, that still does not mean that Jesus cannot save us.

I was on a business trip on the East Coast this last week and my iPhone GPS mapping apps (both Siri and Google) kept giving me bad information in certain areas of town because, apparently, my cell service carrier had some gaps in tower coverage in the city. I ended up going in a few circles until I realized what was happening, but used the overall map scheme to find my way to the airport without too much difficulty. One who is committed to knowing the truth can find Jesus EVEN IF the scriptures are fallible or they have no access to scripture at all.

What we know about the Jesus Who saves us, is ONLY found in the Holy Bible. If the accounts about Him are "with error", then how can we believe what its says? There can be no real Jesus Christ, apart from what the Scriptures say about Him. You cannot separate the two.