Where in the Bible does it claim [I]sola scriptura[/I] and inerrancy?

Church mouse guy, you should check out this thread, "To What Extent is the Bible Infallible and Inerrant" where plenty of people are saying the Bible has errors!
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2586.html

 

The books in the NT canon were chosen due to apostolic authority. I do believe the canon is final and closed -- there is no continuing revelation for the church.

If there is continuing revelation, then we would have to keep adding books to the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]First, it is historically difficult to prove that the books in the NT canon were choosen on the basis of apostilicity (being written or from the words of an apostle). What can be proven is that the books in the canon of the NT were choosen by usage in the church.

Even if one did choose a canon based upon apostolicity, the question must be pressed: why do you take these books as scripture? You do not do so based on the scriptures themself, but because your tradition uses these books. That is not sola scriptura! This is logically inescapable.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Sola Scripture includes the self-attestation of SCripture. Scripture was not validated by usage in the church. It was used in the church because it was self-validating. That is sola scriptura.

 

Matt, Scripture is perfect revelation from God as to his nature, our position and need, and his Son. Since it is HIS word, he overrode the possiblity of errors by sinful man.

 

Marcia,

God said His word stands forever. That's about as good as inerrant I'd say.

If the word is inerrant then when we encounter a discrepancy between the Bible and what we see, we have 2 possibilities.

1. That which we see or have "deduced" is not right.

2. Our understanding of that passage is not right.

I think each of these occurs from time to time.

We have to be careful not to assume that our interpretations are inerrant.

Matt is right in what he has said.

God chose man to be the vehicle by which He preserved His word. He could have made a new series of stone tablets in English - but He didn't. He chose sinful, imperfect man who would copy it over and over and over.

 

The books in the NT canon were chosen due to apostolic authority. </font>[/QUOTE]By whom?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]"Chosen" was probably not the best word here. The early church used the OT and NT books as scripture. These books had the authority of being written by apostles or by those who knew the apostles. When the canon was declared it was because of the heretical books that were being brought forth as God's word supposedly written by apostles. But the authors of those books (many of them gnostic books like the Gospel of Thomas) could not be established, the teachings were contrary to the teachings of Christ and the apostles (which were circulated as the earlier NT books with apostolic authority), and these heretical books were dated later than the NT books. Which books were being used as the word of God had to be set apart from the heretical writings that had sprung up in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

As one of the profs at my seminary said, "Man uncovered what God had already revealed."

This is an interesting article on the reliability of the Gnostic texts vs. the Canonical texts:
http://www.spotlights.org/GNOSTIC.htm

The best book on the topic of the canon of scripture is A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler.

 

Where in the heck did I say that our interpretations are inerrant!! I would NEVER say such a thing!!!

 

I like that passage of Scripture which states:

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

Or #4. God is inerrant and omniscient, the Bible is God's word (whatever that means), God inspired the Bible, but it was written by fallible men and faith communities and therefore has at least the possibility of errors, which do not detract from the opening premise. Not saying that's my view, but it's a possibility that apparently you haven't allowed for...

Please also clarify what you mean by the Bible being God's Word - how is it God's Word?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter if the Bible was written by fallible men -- the writings were inspired by almighty, omnisicent God. The men don't have to know anything; they could even be rather simpleminded. God used men to do all kinds of miraculous things in the world. Why is it hard to believe that God wrote His word through men?

The only errors are copyist and translation errors. I believe the original autographs to be without error.

God's word is the word of God. I don't understand the question.

What do you mean by "faith communities?" Where did you get this from?

 

Marcia, it is sad to me to see that some people do not believe that The Holy Bible is perfect. Jesus said, "Thy word is truth."

 

Maybe you have not read "The Trail of Blood" by Carroll. He tried to show the lineage of the Baptists back to Jesus by crossing over some heretics. That was SBC theology when Whitsitt was fired at Southern Baptist Seminary.

 

Now you are changing the subject to the question of the canon.

Inerrant merely means without error or without mistake. Jesus, who rose from the Dead, said that the Bible was truth. If God says something, then it is true because God cannot lie.

 

It isn't necessary to consider the Bible inerrant just because it is inspired; and it isn't necessary to believe that God overroad all errors in men as they wrote, as long as they wrote His message sufficient for the purpose of His word.

Logically speaking, it could be either way; totally inerrant in all things or not. It is not something we can establish by our own reasoning powers in advance of examining things to see what actually happened.

How many men can testify that God actually directed them as to a sermon subject and content? Probably many right here in this board.

How many men can assert that their sermons, so directed by God, turned out to be inerrant? I'm sure most would admit that they don't claim inerrancy for their sermons, not that anybody is finding any fault in any way, just that it is theoretically possible for them to make an error in a sermon even when God directed them as to what to preach!

Having admitted the possibility, then, for inerrancy to be left out of inspiration, it remains a further question as to what manner of inspiration took place in inspiring our Bible.

 

What beating around the bush. The Holy Bible plainly says that it is God-inspired. And Jesus said that it is truth and truth is to be used to sanctify men.

If The Holy Bible is not inerrant, then it should be discarded as it is useless for Salvation and therefore we are all going to die and go to Hell.