-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
is The belief in an Infallible/inerrent Bible A "cardinal" Doctrine of the Faith?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
No it's not.
We need to consider our beliefs from a position of doctrinal triage. There are foundational beliefs that are necessary to remain an orthodox believer. There are doctrinal beliefs that define one's particular denomination encampment. Then there are tertiary/peripherial beliefs that define one's associations.
Inerrancy is a doctrinal category that is a subset of inspiration and authority. None of these, imho, qualifies as a foundational belief of Christianity. This isn't to say they aren't theologically important. Yet the reality is that the vast majority of Christians in the history of the church would never define inerrancy as a foundational belief...nor hold to it.
We need to consider our beliefs from a position of doctrinal triage. There are foundational beliefs that are necessary to remain an orthodox believer. There are doctrinal beliefs that define one's particular denomination encampment. Then there are tertiary/peripherial beliefs that define one's associations.
Inerrancy is a doctrinal category that is a subset of inspiration and authority. None of these, imho, qualifies as a foundational belief of Christianity. This isn't to say they aren't theologically important. Yet the reality is that the vast majority of Christians in the history of the church would never define inerrancy as a foundational belief...nor hold to it.
Ahh...you read Mohler's article 
Lloyd-Jones said the only real essential was regeneration by grace through faith in Christ alone and the necessity of said regeneration for salvation. Infant/believers baptism, gifts, eschatology, soteriology (calvinism vs. Arminianism) are all second tier.
He has a point.
I'd say this, though. I don't think it's necessary to believe in an orthodox bibliology for salvation to occur, I think it's more than helpful for sanctification to occur.
Lloyd-Jones said the only real essential was regeneration by grace through faith in Christ alone and the necessity of said regeneration for salvation. Infant/believers baptism, gifts, eschatology, soteriology (calvinism vs. Arminianism) are all second tier.
He has a point.
I'd say this, though. I don't think it's necessary to believe in an orthodox bibliology for salvation to occur, I think it's more than helpful for sanctification to occur.
Ahh...you read Mohler's article
Lloyd-Jones said the only real essential was regeneration by grace through faith in Christ alone and the necessity of said regeneration for salvation. Infant/believers baptism, gifts, eschatology, soteriology (calvinism vs. Arminianism) are all second tier.
He has a point.
I'd say this, though. I don't think it's necessary to believe in an orthodox bibliology for salvation to occur, I think it's more than helpful for sanctification to occur.
Just wondering/musing here on this point...
Shouldn't we make essentials those Christ and His Apostles did though?
because they all made it clear that the words of scripture were/are from God directly, and are without errors in them.... For that goes witht he inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that he would give a full and complete revelation from God to us for today...
if we cannot hold to an infallible Bible, where do we pick and chose what is to be considered 'goof proof" and what was not?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Shouldn't the terms infallible and inerrant be defined in order to properly address this question?
stilllearning
Active Member
Hi Tom
You said........
Getting saved, isn’t the issue.
We don’t even need to know, the cardinal Doctrines of the Faith, to get saved.
-----------------
But the real issue is “growing in faith”.
There are a lot of people who are saved, who’s faith has been stunted, because they have been convinced that the Bible isn’t perfect and that it’s foolish to think that it is.
The problem with “stunted faith”, is that a person is blinded to their lack of faith.
Because faith isn’t something that can be measured, in our own eyes.
When the Bible’s perfection is attacked, “personal faith” is the first casualty.
You said........
Getting saved, isn’t the issue.
We don’t even need to know, the cardinal Doctrines of the Faith, to get saved.
-----------------
But the real issue is “growing in faith”.
There are a lot of people who are saved, who’s faith has been stunted, because they have been convinced that the Bible isn’t perfect and that it’s foolish to think that it is.
The problem with “stunted faith”, is that a person is blinded to their lack of faith.
Because faith isn’t something that can be measured, in our own eyes.
When the Bible’s perfection is attacked, “personal faith” is the first casualty.
In order for any doctrine to be "cardinal" it would have to be biblcial. If we accept the notion that scripture alone is our authority, then if something cannot be demonstrated from scripture, it cannot be "cardinal."
What does the Bible say about itself? All scripture is inspired. But does that mean others have not come along later and copied man-made stuff into the text? Do we have the originals? If not, on what basis do we say the text in our hands is perfect?
The Bible is reliable and trustworthy and profitable for instruction. We should live by it.
But there is no mandate from God to live by man-made additions or subtractions. We should us the light God has given us to rationally discern what it means, and not follow those who argue for an irrational interpretation because God is beyond our understanding.
What does the Bible say about itself? All scripture is inspired. But does that mean others have not come along later and copied man-made stuff into the text? Do we have the originals? If not, on what basis do we say the text in our hands is perfect?
The Bible is reliable and trustworthy and profitable for instruction. We should live by it.
But there is no mandate from God to live by man-made additions or subtractions. We should us the light God has given us to rationally discern what it means, and not follow those who argue for an irrational interpretation because God is beyond our understanding.
No...
since God has chosen to save His elect apart from what we can do, than our salvation is from God, so not dependent on viewpoint on Bible ...
But...
Do think that one can be a Christian regardless of viewpoints on Bible, but can one be a Baptist, at least "Evangelical" one apart from views on Bible , or post here on BB with a deficit view on the Scriptures?
These terms would be applied ONLY to the original manuscripts....
Inerrant means there were no mistakes made anywhere in written text, no historical gaffes, everything was accurate just as "reported" all facts were accurate and correct
Infallible means everything was copied down just as intended by the Holy Spirit, author of the scriptures, perserved perfectly...
Last edited by a moderator:
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello Van
You are going at this “the right way”;
You said..........
But....you left something out.
The Bible says that God has promised to preserve His Word for us.
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, this overrides any mistakes or changes, that man might try to do to it.
God is “God”, therefore He is able to perfectly preserve His Word for us.
You are going at this “the right way”;
You said..........
Then you started to list the things that the Bible says about itself.
But....you left something out.
The Bible says that God has promised to preserve His Word for us.
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, this overrides any mistakes or changes, that man might try to do to it.
God is “God”, therefore He is able to perfectly preserve His Word for us.
Skan wrote:
Still wrote:
Jesusfan stated:
Yes. The OP did not do so, so I'd be curious as to those from that perspective.
Still wrote:
I thought that was the crux implied by the OP.
Well, I don't know about that. We have to have some concept of sin, grace, salvation, and Christology to understand and accept Christ, but I'd agree we don't understand them as fully as we will later (I hope).
The only part I don't agree with 1000% is the last sentence. I think church health is the first casualty, which then in turn impedes personal faith since the church fails to teach sound doctrine. Other than that, you and I are in total agreement.
Jesusfan stated:
Correct.
I think someone can be a Christian with an a posteriori deficient view of Scripture. As to the Evangelical, or Baptist definitions, we'd have to define what our measuring stick is. IOW, what is the Bibliology we are using to define orthodoxy? Mere assent to the divine inspiration of the Scriptures? If that's so, the verbal plenarian stands should to shoulder with the dynamic believer who stands shoulder to shoulder with the dictation theorist. And so on it goes.
stilllearning
Active Member
I said........
What dose the Bible say about this........
Acts 8:37
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
--------------------------------------------------
When I got saved all I knew, was that I was sinner and Jesus wanted to save me.
I didn’t understand anything about “grace” or “Christology”.
(But I did believe the Bible was true!)
Think we agree here on this point being addressed ...
I was referencing mainly idea that Some hold that the Bible cannot be trusted today, as it was NOT inspired by God in true sense of that term, or else had mistakes in it as when addressing historical facts, or basically gets 'watered" down as being JUST accomdation to the culture at time wriiten into, so need to "update" its meanings for today, as we live in different culture/times..
For example, the subtle way is to say Jesus was inspired, WWJD, but that Apostles are lesser degree inspired, so we would not REALLY have Jesus ONLY way to God, that all other religions are false, and that we need to see the Gospels as being wriitten with an "agenda", so not really trustworthy!
Hi Stilllearning, do you have a verse or two in mind for the assertion that God promised to perserve His Word for us?
1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
Does this verse say scripture or the incorruptible seed (Christ) liveth and abideth forever?
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
Does this say God perserves scripture or those who believe in Him, protecting the godly from the lying lips of the godless.
Ps. 111:7-8 "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."
Does this say scripture is preserved, or that God's commandments are true forever?
Is. 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Does this say scripture is perserved or that God's word will stand forever?
Ps. 117:2 "... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord."
Does this say scripture is perserved, or that truth of the Lord endurth forever?
Ps. 119:152 "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."
Does this say scripture is perserved, or that the testimonies are true forever?
Ps 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
God's word is certainly true forever, but does this say God has perserved scripture forever?
The Dead Sea scrolls, demonstrated how God's word has been perserved over time. While we could find differences as to spelling and the like, no differences important to doctrine were found. Thus God's word is reliable, what we have is very close to what the inspired authors wrote; it is trustworthy, God's promises are true, we can put our lives in God's hands, and God's Word is profitable, we can live by it.
1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
Does this verse say scripture or the incorruptible seed (Christ) liveth and abideth forever?
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
Does this say God perserves scripture or those who believe in Him, protecting the godly from the lying lips of the godless.
Ps. 111:7-8 "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."
Does this say scripture is preserved, or that God's commandments are true forever?
Is. 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Does this say scripture is perserved or that God's word will stand forever?
Ps. 117:2 "... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord."
Does this say scripture is perserved, or that truth of the Lord endurth forever?
Ps. 119:152 "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."
Does this say scripture is perserved, or that the testimonies are true forever?
Ps 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
God's word is certainly true forever, but does this say God has perserved scripture forever?
The Dead Sea scrolls, demonstrated how God's word has been perserved over time. While we could find differences as to spelling and the like, no differences important to doctrine were found. Thus God's word is reliable, what we have is very close to what the inspired authors wrote; it is trustworthy, God's promises are true, we can put our lives in God's hands, and God's Word is profitable, we can live by it.
When you say "I was a sinner," you're talking about anthropology, the doctrine of man; hamartialogy, the doctrine of sin. When you said that you knew "Jesus wanted to save me" you just implied some level of knowledge of Christology and soteriology. Now, you probably didn't KNOW you knew that, but you did. That's what I'm essentially saying. We have some idea of all this, or else we don't possess enough understanding to repent and believe because we haven't counted the cost of following Christ. The biggest bane of our evangelistic method is that we water down the gospel so no one has to know anything except how to walk an aisle or fill out a card in order to escape hell. Again, dont' construe this like we have to make people theologians before they can be saved. But understand that, in the sense of theology being the thoughts and knowledge of God, EVERYONE is a theologian - even the atheist who says there is no God is making a theological statement - and this includes the unregenerate as well as the regenerate.
Interesting that you knew enough to admit to a bibliology though
stilllearning
Active Member
Thank you very much Van, for this list of Scriptures.
And here are your seven questions..........
--------------------------------------------------
Both. They are one in the same.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes it does.
--------------------------------------------------
It does say that His commandments are true forever.
But this verse also says....... "...all his commandments are sure.”
(He will protect them!)
--------------------------------------------------
YES IT DOES!
--------------------------------------------------
They are also one in the same..........
John 17:17
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
--------------------------------------------------
In Psalms 119, when “God’s testimonies” are mentioned; This is talking about the Word of God.
--------------------------------------------------
Absolutely!
--------------------------------------------------
As is well known, I love God’s Word and I see it as “the most important document” on the planet. Because the Bible itself makes it clear, that we NEED the Bible, to grow in Christ;
Therefore, God MUST HAVE PRESERVED it for us.
As a young Christian, I remember there was a death across the street and my wife sent me over with a some food for the family. As I was leaving, I saw some preachers(Church of God), standing in the front yard. So I stopped and asked them “the Question”.....“Do you believe that the Bible is without error?”
This was the first time, that I heard that great cop-out response, that I have heard many more times.
“Yes(they said), it is without error, but only in it’s original form!”
Now, weather your talking about the autographs, or copies; This “original form” is not in English; Therefore it’s a cop-out! (Can only people who read GK or HB, grow in Christ?!?)
--------------------------------------------------
If every English speaking Christian, would “pick an English version”, and trust in “it” to be God’s Word.....God would bless them WONDERFULLY!!!
And here are your seven questions..........
--------------------------------------------------
Both. They are one in the same.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes it does.
--------------------------------------------------
It does say that His commandments are true forever.
But this verse also says....... "...all his commandments are sure.”
(He will protect them!)
--------------------------------------------------
YES IT DOES!
--------------------------------------------------
They are also one in the same..........
John 17:17
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
--------------------------------------------------
In Psalms 119, when “God’s testimonies” are mentioned; This is talking about the Word of God.
--------------------------------------------------
Absolutely!
--------------------------------------------------
As is well known, I love God’s Word and I see it as “the most important document” on the planet. Because the Bible itself makes it clear, that we NEED the Bible, to grow in Christ;
Therefore, God MUST HAVE PRESERVED it for us.
As a young Christian, I remember there was a death across the street and my wife sent me over with a some food for the family. As I was leaving, I saw some preachers(Church of God), standing in the front yard. So I stopped and asked them “the Question”.....“Do you believe that the Bible is without error?”
This was the first time, that I heard that great cop-out response, that I have heard many more times.
“Yes(they said), it is without error, but only in it’s original form!”
Now, weather your talking about the autographs, or copies; This “original form” is not in English; Therefore it’s a cop-out! (Can only people who read GK or HB, grow in Christ?!?)
--------------------------------------------------
If every English speaking Christian, would “pick an English version”, and trust in “it” to be God’s Word.....God would bless them WONDERFULLY!!!
God's word is reliable, what we have is very close to what the inspired authors wrote; it is trustworthy, God's promises are true, we can put our lives in God's hands, and God's Word is profitable, we can live by it.
God has perserved His Word, such that what we have is reliable, trustworthy and profitable. But the process did not result in perfection. To claim inerrancy in the existing translations into English is without merit, in my opinion.
God has perserved His Word, such that what we have is reliable, trustworthy and profitable. But the process did not result in perfection. To claim inerrancy in the existing translations into English is without merit, in my opinion.
Please stay with the OP, and not derail the thread to the KJVO position, which is not the topic here.