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

Who said that sanctification and salvation were the same thing?

Matt, I am writing you down as a neo-orthodox. Your position sounds the same as the Episcopal Church here (and probably the Church of England, also). You say that The Holy Bible contains enough truth for salvation and that is where you want to drop it.

That is a typical neo-orthodox position. So you cannot call yourself a conservative evangelical. The neo-orthodox want to ordain women and gays and lesbians, allow same-sex marriage, and, as you yourself have posted, are most concerned about social or economic justice and other social issues. You have what is considered a low view of Scripture.

American evangelicals such as the Southern Baptists, who have about 40,000 churches, believe that The Holy Bible is perfect. Marcia has painstakingly stated the doctrine.

 

What I was trying to say is that Jesus says--and I quoted Matthew Henry to make it clearer--that The Holy Bible is truth and the use of The Holy Bible is the means of sanctification.

The social gospel was popular in the US during the Great Depression. It is like washing hogs. One can get the hog all cleaned up for the state fair and put French perfume on it. Given a chance, the hog will go right back to the mud puddle. So it is with the unsaved person. One can feed, shelter, and clothe the unsaved person. However, the greatest need is for Salvation of the soul. Of course, we need church soup kitchens; what we don't need is government regulation of church soup kitchens. For example, because The Salvation Army takes so much government money in the USA, they can no longer require a man to attend a religious service as a condition of a hot meal, a bath, and a bed for the night.

We have to mark you outside of American conservative evangelical thinking and doctrine because you refute that doctrine, deny that doctrine, say that doctrine is not necessary in the first place, and then complain that that doctrine is not Biblical.

 

Wouldn't the correct conclusion be that inerrancy in our current copies is a given? </font>[/QUOTE]No. God does not inspire copyists and translators. His word was given once, not over and over.

What makes more sense to you is not the way to decide truth. Allowing the copies to have a little error has caused no problems with any doctrine and no problems for equipping the saints with what they need to know.

 

Matt Black said:

Romans 10
[8] But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; [9] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [11] For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! [16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? [17] So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I am just checking here as the Bible is important in the salvation according to Verse 17. I trust you are not saying that you do not need the Word of God to get saved.

Richard

 

For the record, when I wrote, Matt, "We have to mark you outside of American conservative evangelical thinking and doctrine because you refute that doctrine, deny that doctrine, say that doctrine is not necessary in the first place, and then complain that that doctrine is not Biblical....", I was thinking of your denial that The Holy Bible is inerrant, the subject of this thread--ok?

 

You have implied that you do not believe in the doctrine. You have said that those who do are like Catholics in that they add custom and tradition to The Holy Bible. You have quoted your Alliance, which does not believe in inerrancy and said that the Alliance represented your personal doctrine I believe. You have stated a belief in community (on other threads) and social welfare. If you do believe that The Holy Bible is perfect, why are you questioning it?

 

For variations in what people at Baptist
Board (BB) believe about innerancy see this
topic:

Bible Inerrancy Poll #2

 

Okay--but I disagree with you that The Holy Bible does not support inerrancy. You should base your opinion on facts. Did you take the poll linked above?

 

Matt, I do not know if you can find a copy of Josh McDowell's 1999 book entitled The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict published by Thomas Nelson in Nashville, but he discusses your question on this thread and more. I am going to quote the six paragrahps that he has published on your particular subject in the hopes that it will be of interest to you. They are on pages 344 and 345:

"Inerrancy is not taught in the Bible" is the claim by those opposed to inerrancy. They say that the Bible does not teach its own inerrancy, but only teaches that it is inspired.

This claim is as incorrect as saying the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. True, nowhere does the Bible say in so many words, "there are three persons in one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." But despite this fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly and emphatically taught in Scripture. How does one arrive at this? By a logical deduction from two principles that are clearly taught in Scripture: (1) There are three persons who are called God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and (2) there is only one God. Simple logic demands that from these two truths only one conclusion follows, a conclusion that no orthodox Christian fails to draw: There are three persons in one God.

Now, by this same logic the Bible also teaches its own inerrancy. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, nowhere do the Scriptures explicitly say, "The Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms." Nevertheless, the Bible does clearly and emphatically teach two truths from which this conclusion is inevitable: First, the very words of Scripture, all of them, are the revelation of God. Paul wrote, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). The word "scripture" means "writings." Over and over the biblical prophets were commanded to record the very "words" of God (Ex. 24:4; Rev 22:19). David confessed on his deathbed, "the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue" (2 Sam. 23:2). Jeremiah was told "Do not diminish a word" of God's prophecy (Jer. 26:2). The apostle Paul claimed to teach "words...which the Holy Spirit teaches" (1 Cor. 2:13).

Second, the Bible emphatically teaches that everything that God utters is true and completely without error. Jesus said to the Father, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). The psalmist declared, "Your word is truth" (Ps. 119:160). The writer of Hebrews stated emphatically, "It is impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18). Paul told Titus that "God...cannot lie" (1:2). Proverbs assures us that "every word of God proves true" (30:5 RSV). In short, the very character of God as true demands that when He speaks He must speak the truth. At the same time, the Scriptures are the very utterance of God. Hence, from these two clearly taught truths of Scripture one and only one conclusion logically follows: Everything the Bible teaches is the unerring truth of God.

Thus it is that inerrancy follows logically from inspiration. If the Bible is God's Word, then it must be without error. Christians have often summarized the doctrine of inerrancy this way: "What the Bible says, God says." Indeed the words "God" and "Scripture" are often used interchangeably in this regard. For example, Hebrews 3:7 declares "the Holy Spirit says" with a reference to the Old Testament Scripture (Ps. 95:7). This pattern is repeated elsewhere (see Acts 2:17; Gal. 3:8; Heb. 9:8).

The Bible does indeed claim its own inerrancy as surely as it teaches that God is a Trinity.

By the way, McDowell quotes Augustine as saying, "I have teamed to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error." McDowell also quotes Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley as saying that the Bible is inerrant.

 

Bump

 

No, these doctrines are not extra-Scriptural!

The fact that there are cults such as the 19th century Jehovah's Witnesses is not from any lack of Scripture but from the sinfulness of man. The problem is not from the intellectual information but from the acceptance of that information. Heresy is based upon the sinful nature of man. When you are face-to-face with Christ, are you going to say to Him, I did not know what You meant when You said, "Thy word is truth"?

These doctrines are not leaps of faith into the unknown; they are logical conclusions based upon the facts, and Christianity is based upon the historical fact of the birth of Jesus, His death, and His resurrection.

The doctrine of inerrancy is not some invention of Americans. Augustine stated it. Thomas Aquinas said, "Nothing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture." Martin Luther said, "The Scriptures have never erred" and "The Scriptures cannot err."

Calvin wrote, "Error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God [through Scripture] has been implanted in it. And the Englishman John Wesley wrote, "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of truth."

The question that you raised in this thread has been answered. You cannot complain that theological doctrines have theological names that are not found in The Holy Bible. For example, the word theology is not found in Scripture, yet you yourself are taking theological postions--which, sadly, are outside the thinking of the Church Fathers, the middle ages, and the Reformation.

 

Sure, but I was trying to show that inerrancy is not the invention of some American professor as errancy is the invention of heretics and German professors. McDowell made the case from Scripture; now the case has been made from Church history. Inerrancy is the orthodox doctrine.

Throw away your books by German professors of the 19th century.