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

[Yeshua1]

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

If that is what he really believes in, then he would be holding to a limited imerrancy viewpoint!

 

[Yeshua1]

The scriptures in the originals were fully inerrant, and now are still infallible in all that they teach about...

And Jesus death saves us, and the Spirit takes the Gospel message and enables us to receiveHim to get saved, but still have that problem if we see it as being limited inerrancy, where and when should we really trust what it states to us?

 

[Yeshua1]

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"?

Are the bible versions inerrant? No, but the good ones are for sure infallible!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

Yes, as the Dr was not saved, but someone who is a teacher in the church must rightly discern the scriptures!

 

[JonC]

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!

That's a common error. Our stand for truth is itself a stand in opposition to that which is false. We do not have to attack those who distort. We can consider what is said, take what is good and leave out what is bad.

This is how some of us can learn from people like CS Lewis, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley while also teaching in opposition to their doctrine (like sacrament, a denial of eternal divine punishment, infant baptism, ect.).

 

[Reynolds]

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!

He does not question the virgin birth or Adam and Eve. You are simply bearing false witness about him.

 

[AndyMartin]

Are the bible versions inerrant? No, but the good ones are for sure infallible!

I would say that in all probability, that at least 98% of versions of the English Bible's are in agreement. There are some textual variations, but not many that are major, though there are some, like 1 Timothy 3:16, where "θεὸς" is the correct reading, and is very important for the Deity of Jesus Christ, as His Incarnation. Our confidence must not be shaken by these differences.

 

[JonC]

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.

This is not true. There was a separation between my salvation and my acceptance of an inerrant Scripture. My belief was tied to the power of the gospel, not the accuracy of the biblical narrative.

 

[AndyMartin]

He does not question the virgin birth or Adam and Eve. You are simply bearing false witness about him.

maybe you should quit defending Stanley for the sake of it, or from some unknown loyalty, and hear and see what he ACTUALLY has said. These quotes are from the two video clips on the other thread:

"The foundation of our faith is not the Scriptures, the foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible...you can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what, who is Jesus...when I deal with Adam and Eve I quickly say, hey this is one of those odd stories, this is that story you heard growing up about two naked people, running around in a garden, and who can believe that, there are many creation myths"

"Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus"?

 

[AndyMartin]

This is not true. There was a separation between my salvation and my acceptance of an inerrant Scripture. My belief was tied to the power of the gospel, not the accuracy of the biblical narrative.

You don't get what I am saying? What we know about God, the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, etc, and everything about our salvation, is found in the Holy Bible. If there were errors in the Bible, then who is to say that accounts about these Important issues are not also part of those errors? Do you understand? We NEED an Infallible, Inerrant Holy Bible to base our understanding on. I am NOT saying that a sinner needs to understand this before they are saved, in order to get saved!

 

[Yeshua1]

That's a common error. Our stand for truth is itself a stand in opposition to that which is false. We do not have to attack those who distort. We can consider what is said, take what is good and leave out what is bad.

This is how some of us can learn from people like CS Lewis, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley while also teaching in opposition to their doctrine (like sacrament, a denial of eternal divine punishment, infant baptism, ect.).

All of them has areas where their theology was not biblical, but all of us have that problem to some degree! The tricj is to not be in error on the cardinal doctrines of the faith...

 

[Yeshua1]

maybe you should quit defending Stanley for the sake of it, or from some unknown loyalty, and hear and see what he ACTUALLY has said. These quotes are from the two video clips on the other thread:

"The foundation of our faith is not the Scriptures, the foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible...you can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what, who is Jesus...when I deal with Adam and Eve I quickly say, hey this is one of those odd stories, this is that story you heard growing up about two naked people, running around in a garden, and who can believe that, there are many creation myths"

"Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus"?

If no Virgin Birth, how did he manage to bypass the fall and not receive a sin nature>

 

[Yeshua1]

I would say that in all probability, that at least 98% of versions of the English Bible's are in agreement. There are some textual variations, but not many that are major, though there are some, like 1 Timothy 3:16, where "θεὸς" is the correct reading, and is very important for the Deity of Jesus Christ, as His Incarnation. Our confidence must not be shaken by these differences.

The "mistakes" in english versions do NOT invalidate any cardinal truth of the faith...

 

[JonC]

You don't get what I am saying? What we know about God, the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, etc, and everything about our salvation, is found in the Holy Bible. If there were errors in the Bible, then who is to say that accounts about these Important issues are not also part of those errors? Do you understand? We NEED an Infallible, Inerrant Holy Bible to base our understanding on. I am NOT saying that a sinner needs to understand this before they are saved, in order to get saved!

Yes, Christians need and have the infallible Word of God. I agree (I was still thinking evangelism because of the other thread....sorry).

 

[JonC]

All of them has areas where their theology was not biblical, but all of us have that problem to some degree! The tricj is to not be in error on the cardinal doctrines of the faith...

And identifying those doctrines

 

[AndyMartin]

That's a common error. Our stand for truth is itself a stand in opposition to that which is false. We do not have to attack those who distort. We can consider what is said, take what is good and leave out what is bad.

This is how some of us can learn from people like CS Lewis, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley while also teaching in opposition to their doctrine (like sacrament, a denial of eternal divine punishment, infant baptism, ect.).

John, Doctrines like, "sacrament, a denial of eternal divine punishment, infant baptism", are what are known as "secondary", and not "essential" to our salvation. NNE can ever be a truly born again person, who denies the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Stanley says very clearly, that it does not matter if the story of the Virgin Birth is true, as our faith hinges on only the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. How can Jesus die if He were not born? And if He was not born of a virgin, and the natural way with a natural father and mother, then He CANNOT BE God in the flesh! This is FUNDAMENTAL.

 

[JonC]

John, Doctrines like, "sacrament, a denial of eternal divine punishment, infant baptism", are what are known as "secondary", and not "essential" to our salvation. NNE can ever be a truly born again person, who denies the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Stanley says very clearly, that it does not matter if the story of the Virgin Birth is true, as our faith hinges on only the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. How can Jesus die if He were not born? And if He was not born of a virgin, and the natural way with a natural father and mother, then He CANNOT BE God in the flesh! This is FUNDAMENTAL.

I believe there is a difference between not holding a doctrine and rejecting a doctrine.

For example, I believe one can be a Christian without believing the doctrine of the Trinity. But I do not believe one can be a Christian and reject this doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

And identifying those doctrines

Think they already were, it was in the Fundamentals, edited by RA Torrey?

 

[Yeshua1]

John, Doctrines like, "sacrament, a denial of eternal divine punishment, infant baptism", are what are known as "secondary", and not "essential" to our salvation. NNE can ever be a truly born again person, who denies the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Stanley says very clearly, that it does not matter if the story of the Virgin Birth is true, as our faith hinges on only the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. How can Jesus die if He were not born? And if He was not born of a virgin, and the natural way with a natural father and mother, then He CANNOT BE God in the flesh! This is FUNDAMENTAL.

True, for if he was born of Joseph, than would have been a sinner, and not qualified to be the sin bearer!

 

[AndyMartin]

I believe there is a difference between not holding a doctrine and rejecting a doctrine.

For example, I believe one can be a Christian without believing the doctrine of the Trinity. But I do not believe one can be a Christian and reject this doctrine.

Not possible