Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

[John of Japan]

This is quite an old article, but do read it; you'll fall about laughing!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rsposse/pooh.htm

Loved it!

 

[TCassidy]

You did sidestep in that you did not answer (and still do not answer) my statement about 2 Tim. 3:16 and the mode of inspiration.

This is, in my opinion, the most important point regarding this issue.

Harold Lindsell describes well how the truth of Scripture’s inspiration logically leads to inerrancy:

However limited may have been their knowledge, and however much they erred when they were not writing sacred Scripture, the authors of Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were preserved from making factual, historical, scientific, or other errors . . . God the Holy Spirit by nature cannot lie or be the author of untruth. If the Scripture is inspired at all it must be infallible. (The Battle for the Bible: page 30-31.)

Biblical inerrancy means the Bible contains no error. It is without error in faith and fact. If we have the self-disclosure of the holy God, it cannot be mixed with error. Error and truth cannot be contained in the same document which claims to be a self-disclosure of a holy, righteous God. If error is mixed with truth, then that is deception which violates the character of God. (Otis Yoder & Harold S. Martin, Biblical Inerrancy and Reliability, Harrisonburg VA (Fellowship of Concerned Mennonites, 1985) page 9.)

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Inspired yes, concerning verbal plenary, I would say no. Thought that was implied in my answer, when I said mode is not essential.

Point taken.

Neither the NAE, the BF&M's require, as you would seem to require, a mode of inspiration. In fact Herschel Hobbs wrote in his book "The Baptist Faith and Message" said

I specifically said that the NAE statement was weak. I thought it would be clear that I do not think the NAE statement requires a mode.

"Which of these two theories* one holds has never been a test of orthodoxy among Southern Baptists. For both groups see all of the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God."

*The two theories Hobbs is speaking of are number 4 and 5 from TCassidy's list of theories of inspiration.

So, it isn't exactly as obvious as you say.

Okay, I'll let this one by. But the topic of the thread is not inspiration but inerrancy. Surely you will agree that the BFA of the SBC requires a belief in inerrancy.

I would rather have loyalty to Jesus than any written document.

This doesn't fly. It is not "either loyalty to Christ or loyalty to a written document." One can be loyal to Christ without loyalty to the document (I don't like its soteriology, myself, which suggests Lordship salvation.) Or he can be loyal to the document without loyalty to Christ. Or he can be loyal to both.

That people were fired for NOT believing something that was NOT in the statement of faith is one of the more confusing and sad chapters in SBC life.

See my previous statement. The BFM is clear on inerrancy if not the mode of inspiration. So my SBC missionary acquaintances were not fired for something not in the BFM, but for not believing in inerrancy, which is in the BFM. (The husband told me himself he did not believe in inerrancy.)

Having been a missionary to Japan for 33 years, I still think it extremely strange that the SBC missionaries were not historically expected to agree with the BFM for so long. I myself was turned down by a board when I plainly said I did not agree with their doctrinal statement. Normally, that is SOP for a mission board or any other such organization.

Did I get bitter? Did I complain? No, of course not. That would have been immature. I took it as entirely normal and logical to require me to agree with their doctrinal statement.

 

[Revmitchell]

Loyalty to a document???? Where did that come from? How about loyalty to God's words is also loyalty to God. Failure to one is failure to both.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Proponents of numbers 3, 4, and 5 could probably be found within the parameters of conservative Evangelicalism.

Many of us are staunch defenders of position #5 while others defend #4. (I am not aware of any who accept #3 on the forum.)

I've encountered a few who post like they are #3, but I suspect we are talking past each other. There are lots of #5s, while I'm a #4.

Yet both consider the other to be within the ranks of conservative Evangelicalism.

Not to nit pick, but Baptists used to consider themselves Baptists, not evangelicals (that is, adherents of mainline churches who hold to conservative viewpoints). I have never considered myself an evangelical/Evangelical.

I am a Theologically conservative fundamentalist... and consider both #3 and #4 to be in error, but still consider those believing such to be my brother/sisters in Christ, fellow laborers in the Gospel, and fellow travelers on our Royal Path of Life.

Glad to share the narrow way with you, brother!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

That's where I come from too. From my POV, Baptists historically are by definition evangelical. So, in many ways asking me if I support an Evangelical position is almost a nullity.

Not to nit pick, but Baptists used to consider themselves Baptists, not evangelicals (that is, adherents of mainline churches who hold to conservative viewpoints). I have never considered myself an evangelical/Evangelical.

 

[evangelist6589]

I see that some contributors to this thread have not so much as a clue as to what literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism are, and know even less about their methodology. Therefore, here is a link to an introductory (and very brief) survey of biblical criticism that includes some additional helpful links: http://www.theopedia.com/biblical-criticism

Excuse me?? I am well aware of these criticisms are as I did take NTI. However being more excited about theology I spend more time reading these types of books.

 

[TCassidy]

The term "evangelical" has gradually become more and more diluted since the 1946 when Harold Ockenga announced a "new evangelicalism," believing that fundamentalism (essentially the evangelicalism of the day) was divisive and neglected social issues (though fundamentalism had been feeding the poor in "rescue missions" for decades).

Not to mention many fundamentalists of today label anything/anyone "New Evangelical" who disagrees with them.

Personally I like to allow the man who coined the phrase to define it.

Harold Ockenga stated in the forward to "The Battle For The Bible," restate Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, . . . reexamination of theological "problems" such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, and others.

He also said, "While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals." (Ockenga, Foreword to The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell, page 11).

Dr. Ockenga advocated what he called "Denominational infiltration" - to go back to the old, dead, mainline Protestant denominations and infiltrate them with the New Evangelical "gospel."

He went on to say, "Since I first coined the phrase “The New Evangelicalism” at a convocation address at Fuller Theological Seminary ten years ago, the evangelical forces have been welded into an organizational front. First, there is the National Association of Evangelicals which provides articulation for the movement on the denominational level; second, there is World Evangelical Fellowship which binds together these individual national associations of some twenty-six countries into a world organization; third, there is the new apologetic literature stating this point of view which is now flowing from the presses of the great publishers, including Macmillans and Harpers; fourth, there is the existence of Fuller Theological Seminary and other evangelical seminaries which are fully committed to orthodox Christianity and a resultant social philosophy; fifth, there is the establishment of Christianity Today, a bi-weekly publication, to articulate the convictions of this movement; sixth, there is the appearance of an evangelist, Billy Graham, who on the mass level is the spokesman of the convictions and ideal of the New Evangelicalism."

On the basis of the above I define New Evangelicalism as adhering to all three of the below.

(1) a repudiation of the doctrine of separation;

(2) a summons to greater social involvement; and

(3) a determination to engage in theological dialogue with Modernism.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 2pm Pacific this thread will be closed.