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

Matt, I totally agree with Swaimj's post -- hope you read it. Your examples were not examples of being errant but rather your wrong understanding.

But if the Bible is not inerrant, then how do you know which parts of it about Jesus are true and which aren't? For all you know, most of it could be wrong. You have no standard by which to measure this.

 

Matt, I guess that you are a liberal or a neo-orthodox. One of the hallmarks of the evangelical is belief that The Holy Bible is perfect.

It does not matter about the name of your organization. It matters about the theology.

You wrote, "I expect the reason is the same as mine, and that's why the EA has been careful in its wording. I have given examples of why 'entire trustworthiness' does not necessarily equate to 'inerrancy'"

You have been influenced by the 19th century German professors that devalued German Christianity before Hitler.

The trouble with higher criticism is that it is illogical. If The Holy Bible is not perfect, then the higher critics, the German professors, have no way to pay for sin. It is a slippery slope.

The Christian cannot afford a viewpoint of Scripture that is lower than the Lord Jesus Christ, who said that God's word is truth. As I have shown above, the English people did not always have such a low view of Scripture as you now evidence.

 

Verses 17-19
The next thing he prayed for for them was that they might be sanctified; not only kept from evil, but made good.
I. Here is the petition (v. 17): Sanctify them through thy truth, through thy word, for thy word is truth; it is true—it is truth itself. He desires they may be sanctified,
1. As Christians. Father, make them holy, and this will be their preservation, 1 Th. 5:23. Observe here,
(1.) The grace desired—sanctification. The disciples were sanctified, for they were not of the world; yet he prays, Father sanctify them, that is, [1.] "Confirm the work of sanctification in them, strengthen their faith, inflame their good affections, rivet their good resolutions.’’ [2.] "Carry on that good work in them, and continue it; let the light shine more and more.’’ [3.] "Complete it, crown it with the perfection of holiness; sanctify them throughout and to the end.’’ Note, First, It is the prayer of Christ for all that are his that they may be sanctified; because he cannot for shame own them as his, either here or hereafter, either employ them in his work or present them to his Father, if they be not sanctified. Secondly, Those that through grace are sanctified have need to be sanctified more and more. Even disciples must pray for sanctifying grace; for, if he that was the author of the good work be not the finisher of it, we are undone. Not to go forward is to go backward; he that is holy must be holy still, more holy still, pressing forward, soaring upward, as those that have not attained. Thirdly, It is God that sanctifies as well as God that justified, 2 Co. 5:5. Fourthly, It is an encouragement to us, in our prayers for sanctifying grace, that it is what Christ intercedes for for us.
(2.) The means of conferring this grace— through thy truth, thy word is truth. Not that the Holy One of Israel is hereby limited to means, but in the counsel of peace among other things it was settled and agreed, [1.] That all needful truth should be comprised and summed up in the word of God. Divine revelation, as it now stands in the written word, is not only pure truth without mixture, but entire truth without deficiency. [2.] That this word of truth should be the outward and ordinary means of our sanctification; not of itself, for then it would always sanctify, but as the instrument which the Spirit commonly uses in beginning and carrying on that good work; it is the seed of the new birth (1 Pt. 1:23), and the food of the new life, 1 Pt. 2:1-2....

Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers) 1997.

 

By "inerrant" I mean inerrant in the originals. We are able to discern the copyist and translator errors for the most part, and where the copies differ, the differences are slight (and these differences are from copyist and sometimes translators' errors).

All sound Christian institutions I know of (including my church, my seminary, and my mission board, in addition to all my supporting churches and several Christian organizations) believe that the originals of God's word are inerrant.

 

Marcia,

You haven't yet really defined "inerrant". You assert that the originals contain no error. But why would God see to it that the originals were inerrant but the manuscripts and eventually the Bible that His churches would use might contain "copyist errors"?

I think it was and IS inerrant. But I think the lack of error is better measured by the fact that it is completely consistent and wonderfully sufficient in its purpose. Details like the number of horses or the length of a certain king's reign are actuarial to the message!

The notion that IF a skeptic can find a factual "error" in the Bible then we're all washed up is flawed. The Bible was and is what God wanted it to be, nothing more and nothing less.

 

By inerrant, I mean no errors at all -- in spelling, grammar, etc. God cannot err.

I think the reasons we don't have the originals but only copies are
1. So we don't worship the originals
2. Can you imagine the interminable arguments about who would get to "keep" them?
3. Someone could fool around with the originals or claim they were fooled around with -- then there would no way to know what God's word really is

The reason there are errors in the copies are because copying and translaton is not inspired by God. This does not bother me at all - that we have copies with errors -- because the errors are so few and the manuscripts match up quite well despite these errors. The message is clear and no important doctrine is affected.

 

Marcia,

OK - that sounds reasonable. I agree that the number of "copyist errors" is few and that NO doctrines are affected. You are in a sense admitting that the Bible we hold TODAY contains a few factual inconsistencies. I'd agree with this. There are probably plenty on this board who will take great offense to this - but...

I think that the Bible has remarkably stood the test of time. It is correct in its prophetic prediction (although I don't see that as its major purpose) and completely relevant for us today.

But I assert that the few factual inconsistencies don't even matter - and wouldn't have mattered in the originals either. I think that some differences in dates or reigns are exactly what you would expect from something written in the near east 4000 years ago, which WAS God's chosen means of bringing us the OT.

The Bible was and is perfect for its purpose.

 

I would like to know what these few factual inconsistencies are. And, yes, errors in the originals would have spoken to the issue of God as omnipotent, omnisicent, omnipresent, and eternal. Also, it would have called into question the fact that Jesus said that the Word of God is truth.

The Holy Bible is perfect. To add the phrase "for its purpose" [sic] is to imply that there is some limitation, which there is not. Man does not live by bread alone. The neo-orthodox want to add something like "for its purpose" in order to depart from the orthodox. That is what Matt is saying also in my opinion. That won't do because it shouts that The Holy Bible is useless or incorrect other than for limited uses. That cannot be. Either The Holy Bible is 100% perfect or it is 100% useless.

On the question of errors in translation, etc.: This shows the sinfulness of man. If there were no human errors, man would sinfully claim collusion; if there are errors, man sinfully claims imperfection.

 

How could a corrupt Word of God save anyone? You are basing your faith on your emotions while my faith is grounded in the historical fact that Jesus was born, died, and rose from the dead. This is unique in human history so therefore I can believe Jesus when He says that He is God and that the Word of God is truth. Truth is an absolute category. The role of the Truth is to santify us, as Matthew Henry, another Englishman for your benefit, has pointed out in the commentary posted above.

I re-post part of Matthew Henry for your convenience:

The means of conferring this grace— through thy truth, thy word is truth. Not that the Holy One of Israel is hereby limited to means, but in the counsel of peace among other things it was settled and agreed, [1.] That all needful truth should be comprised and summed up in the word of God. Divine revelation, as it now stands in the written word, is not only pure truth without mixture, but entire truth without deficiency. [2.] That this word of truth should be the outward and ordinary means of our sanctification; not of itself, for then it would always sanctify, but as the instrument which the Spirit commonly uses in beginning and carrying on that good work; it is the seed of the new birth (1 Pt. 1:23), and the food of the new life, 1 Pt. 2:1-2....

 

I haven't added anything. You have subtracted something that belongs.

Look at your position. You say that you believe in the historical fact that Jesus was born, died on the cross, and resurrected from the dead three days later.

However, you are then saying that you just don't believe Jesus when He says that The Holy Bible is Truth and is used to sanctify.

As Matthew Henry, an Englishman who lived from 1662 to 1714, said, Grace is conferred upon the Christian by the Truth of the Holy Bible. Matthew Henry explains it as well as anyone: " Divine revelation, as it now stands in the written word, is not only pure truth without mixture, but entire truth without deficiency. [2.] That this word of truth should be the outward and ordinary means of our sanctification; not of itself, for then it would always sanctify, but as the instrument which the Spirit commonly uses in beginning and carrying on that good work; it is the seed of the new birth (1 Pt. 1:23), and the food of the new life, 1 Pt. 2:1-2...."

The mind of man cannot find error in The Holy Bible.

 

CMG,

" The Holy Bible is perfect. To add the phrase "for its purpose" [sic] is to imply that there is some limitation, which there is not. Man does not live by bread alone. The neo-orthodox want to add something like "for its purpose" in order to depart from the orthodox. That is what Matt is saying also in my opinion. That won't do because it shouts that The Holy Bible is useless or incorrect other than for limited uses. That cannot be. Either The Holy Bible is 100% perfect or it is 100% useless.

So the Bible is perfect for everything?

The Bible is the perfect cookbook?

The Bible is the perfect car repair manual?

The Bible is the perfect textbook of medicine?

And you misdefined neo-orthodox. This position characterizes neither me nor Matt.

Your assertion that the Bible is 100% perfect or 100% useless shows your misunderstanding of its purpose. It is about God's dealings with His people. There ARE several inconsistencies in facts - that's not by my choice - it just IS. Are you afraid of this? Why should one be? Don't we trust God enough that we can take the Bible as it was meant and not have to try to prove its accuracy on matters it never was intended to address?

 

CMG,

What do you make of this?

"I Kings 7:23-26 (II Chronicles 4:2-5)
23Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely."

If the diameter is 10 cubits then the circumference would be 10 times pi (3.14 etc) - so the circumference would be NOT 30 cubits but 31.4 cubits. The circle would not encircle it completely.

What does this mean?

NOTHING!

It's a factual inconsistency - but the point is clear. The Bible is not a geomtery text and the basic idea of dimensions is clear. But the 31 cubits is still wrong technically. By your count the Bible would have been rendered "useless".

 

But now you are changing it to sound like the factual inconsistencies were written that way in the originals (because you refer to "something written in the near east 4000 yrs ago"). Maybe that's not what you are saying, but I am not sure. I maintain that when the Bible was originally written, there were no errors because those were God's words.

Also, I don't label these factual inconsistencies because
1. People who don't understand how the Bible came about (especially skeptics) use this to say the Bible has mistakes
2. The errors are not in the originals
3. We can usually reconcile these inconsistencies

I prefer to say "apparent factual discrepancies" or "apparent factual inconsistencies." After all, some numbers in Hebrew change considerably in quantity with just a dot, and it's not hard to understand how a copyist misread a number or saw a smudge as a dot, or whatever. Then there were the different ways a king's years of reigning were counted, so that accounts for some discrepancies.

I always qualify my statement when people ask me if I think the Bible is error free. I say something like, "the Bible in the original writings is free of error; the Bible we have today have some minor mistakes and discrepancies from copyist and translator errors." I'm used to giving long answers to things; I'd rather do that than be misleading. There are no errors from God.

So when people on the BB argue about whether the Bible has errors or not, they should be clear about what they mean by that and qualify it. I don't alwasy see that.

 

Wouldn't the correct conclusion be that inerrancy in our current copies is a given? Certainly a righteous, omniscient God would not give us error-ridden versions while, for no apparent reason, creating inerrant originals. What makes more sense - a God creating an original with 1% error and preserving it well so that ours have 2% error, or a God creating an original that is inerrant but allowing our copies to have 3% error? What matters is how much error He allows in our versions, not some version that may or may not have existed long ago.

 

We can say, with absolute certainty, that the Bibles we have are not 100% perfect. If your argument is correct, then the Bible is useless.