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

[Reynolds]

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"?

You should quit flat lying about what he believes. Your violation of context is not accurately conveying his belief.

 

[JonC]

Not possible

It was with the early church. In fact, it probably was with many of us here. I, for one, was a Christian before I could claim to hold the doctrine of the Trinity. If pressed, I am not sure I fully understand it now. But even then I did not deny the doctrine.

I can't remember if I believed the virgin birth of Christ before or after I was saved. I suspect afterwards as during my very early Christian experience I focused on the Incarnation (on God becoming man).

My point is that you believing it impossible has no bearing on the very real fact it is not.

 

[AndyMartin]

It was with the early church. In fact, it probably was with many of us here. I, for one, was a Christian before I could claim to hold the doctrine of the Trinity. If pressed, I am not sure I fully understand it now. But even then I did not deny the doctrine.

I can't remember if I believed the virgin birth of Christ before or after I was saved. I suspect afterwards as during my very early Christian experience I focused on the Incarnation (on God becoming man).

My point is that you believing it impossible has no bearing on the very real fact it is not.

If a person is a born again believer, and is asked if they believed in the Holy Trinity, it is a different matter if they said they did not understand it, and needed clarification. But, after they were shown it to be in the Bible, and they still said they did not believe it, not reject it, then I would doubt their salvation. The Trinity is the main difference between Christianity and all religions of the world, as it teaches that Jesus Christ is not just the Saviour, but "God manifested in the flesh", as a mere man, not matter how much filled by God, can never save anyone. This is THE Cardinal Doctrine of the Holy Bible.

 

[JonC]

If a person is a born again believer, and is asked if they believed in the Holy Trinity, it is a different matter if they said they did not understand it, and needed clarification. But, after they were shown it to be in the Bible, and they still said they did not believe it, not reject it, then I would doubt their salvation. The Trinity is the main difference between Christianity and all religions of the world, as it teaches that Jesus Christ is not just the Saviour, but "God manifested in the flesh", as a mere man, not matter how much filled by God, can never save anyone. This is THE Cardinal Doctrine of the Holy Bible.

Yes, that is what I said - there is a difference between not holding a doctrine and rejecting that doctrine.

 

[AndyMartin]

you said, "I believe one can be a Christian without believing the doctrine of the Trinity." This is not possible as I have said earlier

 

[JonC]

you said, "I believe one can be a Christian without believing the doctrine of the Trinity." This is not possible as I have said earlier

So you believe a person cannot be saved without believing a doctrine that was not articulated in the first century? Impossible.

A man can be saved without believing the doctrine of the Trinity IF they believe the gospel of Christ. Rejecting the doctrine once taught is another matter, but it is wrong to add to the gospel.

I don't believe a man can be saved and not believe that Jesus is God, but that's another matter.

 

[Baptist Believer]

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.

That's the most popular definition of inerrant...

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.

I'm not talking about translations, but the original language copies.

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.

So he is the final arbiter of the issue?

Look, I don't have any issues with the longer ending of Mark, but there are other variant manuscripts of Mark that have different endings. I happen to believe that the longer ending of Mark (as in the KJV and other translations) is probably the correct one, but I would not fight anyone over it, nor claim certainty over the issue.

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.

Having the variant endings of Mark listed and noted seems like a perfectly fair thing to do.

...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"?

I'm not following your question (if it was intended to be a question). Textual variants simply demonstrate that can't be completely certain about the text. As far as we know, we do not have the original autographs for any portion of scripture, nor do we have a foolproof way of recognizing them if we stumbled across them.

A theory of inerrancy that only applies to the original text actually serves to undermine the infallibility of the texts we do possess, so I am not an inerrantist in the sense you defined at the beginning of our post. I believe the scriptures we have are infallible, but not inerrant.

 

[Baptist Believer]

What we know about the Jesus Who saves us, is ONLY found in the Holy Bible.

Those who are disciples of Jesus have an experiential relationship with Him.

If the accounts about Him are "with error", then how can we believe what its says?

(1) You have fallen into a fallacy that demands absolute certainty or nothing can be believed or relied upon. That is a very modern epistemological viewpoint. If I am a juror in court and hear testimony about an event that varies in a few minor facts, but agrees on all the major points, I can accept the various witnesses as credible, even if there are some minor disagreements (errors) about irrelevant things. Your viewpoint looks for reasons to disbelieve the witnesses and throw out all of the testimony unless it lines up perfectly.

(2) One can believe in the scripture is inspired without believing that the copies we currently possess are inerrant. (I do.) One can believe the scripture is infallible without believing that the copies we currently believe are inerrant. (I do.) One can believe that the scriptures are inerrant (in the sense that they do not "err" (that is "stray" or "wander") from God's purpose for them in the copies we have not without believing that the copies we have are free from any errors. (I do.)

There can be no real Jesus Christ, apart from what the Scriptures say about Him. You cannot separate the two.

Jesus really exists whether or not scripture exists. Scripture does not enable the reality of Jesus. Abraham did not have scripture and he did just fine. In fact, Jesus claimed to know Him (John 8:56-58).