What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Let's have another controversial post on inerrancy

Grazer

Grazer

Member
This one comes from the perspective on how it does more harm than good.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/18/inerrancy-is-not-a-victimless-crime/


The doctrine of “inerrancy†is often referred to as a “high view of scripture.†It is not.

It’s a low-down dirty trick to play on the Bible and on anyone who tries to read it. Inerrancy is not a victimless crime. It chases some people away from the Bible and prevents others from reading it intelligently.
 
Grazer, This is one subject that as you noted, goes back and forth. One reason is because its a belief in a belief, not something that is axiomatic and proven on level of relationship. In fact we could go as far as to say this ideal is an anti-relationship with God.

What's the point in inerrancy if one is walking in relationship with God and they are NOT trying to make "belief in God" acceptable on a rational level with society and radical anti-believers? Inerrancy has no point in relationship with God.
 
SlickPen50 said:
Grazer, This is one subject that as you noted, goes back and forth. One reason is because its a belief in a belief, not something that is axiomatic and proven on level of relationship. In fact we could go as far as to say this ideal is an anti-relationship with God.

What's the point in inerrancy if one is walking in relationship with God and they are NOT trying to make "belief in God" acceptable on a rational level with society and radical anti-believers? Inerrancy has no point in relationship with God.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's God you are walking with if you cannot trust scripture to tell you the truth?


One more point. I read your link. It does not address what we claim. The origional are without error. Do you believe that to be true or false?

copy from SoF of this site.

We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God.
 
P31Woman, I would agree that God is not capable of error. Yet, He was the one who made several version of "the canon of scripture" nor did He ever predict or say that there should be "a canon" of scripture. Secondly, if God revealed Himself to people before any written works about Him were available or before people could read such, why would He change? Isn't He the same yesterday, today and forever? And just because there were written works bearing "scripture" does this muzzle God and keep Him from continuing to reveal Himself? A more radical thought is: could God be continuing to create scripture today? And what about the books written by Paul and John which got "lost" are we sorry out of luck about the content in those books?

Its a lot better if we think of "the bible" as Jesus did, sufficient to lead us unto Him and this way the Holy Spirit can recall all things He purpose whether they were ever written about or lost if they were.

If "the bible" is perfect, why do we need God?
 
SlickPen

You make some great points. I think belief in God is completely rational but that's got nothing to do with inerrancy of the Bible. My relationship with God is not based on any interpretation of the Bible, it's about knowing God and following him and trusting him. As you've put, I don't believe God has stopped working after the Bible, he continues to inspire and direct and move, he is not confined to the Bible.
 
Grazer said:
SlickPen

You make some great points. I think belief in God is completely rational but that's got nothing to do with inerrancy of the Bible. My relationship with God is not based on any interpretation of the Bible, it's about knowing God and following him and trusting him. As you've put, I don't believe God has stopped working after the Bible, he continues to inspire and direct and move, he is not confined to the Bible.
Click to expand...

All Christians cults teach that God has continued to give special revelation just as you say you believe. Why not go join the Mormon church? What makes your jesus/god any differant than theirs? What about Jehovah Witness? Unification Chruch? Christian Science?

Are we all on the same journey with God?


Matthew 7

22 Many people will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not preach in Your Name?

Did we not put out demons in Your Name?

Did we not do many powerful works in Your Name?’

23 Then I will say to them in plain words, ‘I never knew you. Go away from Me, you who do wrong!’
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P31W (shortened),
I think I did answer your question, do we have all of God breathed words? And if we don't is it still without error? Textually, the bible itself admits that we DO NOT have all of what God gave these writers as I noted in my article: http://kingdomcitizenship.org/wp/201...e-as-inerrant/

I think this is stark! Secondly, do we have the original texts themselves? The answer to that is no way, just the same as the Mormons do not have the gold plats given to Joseph Smith. So we, just like they, cannot prove anything about the "origional God breathed words." And the attempt to do so is not a good or practical endeavor.

You asked about "special revelation." Who said anything about "special revelations?" This is a trick of language and religious teachers to differentiate "orthodoxy" from alleged "heresy."

How do we tell the difference between what the JW's and Mormons bring from that which we have from God? Easy! All that other stuff takes away from God and a focus on what He wants to do and has demonstratably done. Holding to the bible is really no guarantee of rightness either, because what happens when we twist what scripture says or means, or misinterpret it (purposely or otherwise). In that case we are no different than outright cultists and mystery religionists.

I guess we need to ask what is the purpose for taking a pro-view of inerrancy is all about. IF we genuinely plumb the depths of that question we'll be aghast at where we end up.

As far as christian cults go, more of the accepted/orthodoxy is cultish if not a cult than those believers who reject such. Lets talk about what "cult" is and what "heresy" is and then go back and look at so-called ecclesiastical history and we'll have to make some admission we'd not like to...

P31W, no doubt many believe these things for good reasons. But medieval believers also believed sincerely, and with good purposes in mind, that the earth was flat.
 
SlickPen50 said:
P31W (shortened),
I think I did answer your question, do we have all of God breathed words? And if we don't is it still without error? Textually, the bible itself admits that we DO NOT have all of what God gave these writers as I noted in my article: http://kingdomcitizenship.org/wp/201...e-as-inerrant/

I think this is stark! Secondly, do we have the original texts themselves? The answer to that is no way, just the same as the Mormons do not have the gold plats given to Joseph Smith. So we, just like they, cannot prove anything about the "origional God breathed words." And the attempt to do so is not a good or practical endeavor.

You asked about "special revelation." Who said anything about "special revelations?" This is a trick of language and religious teachers to differentiate "orthodoxy" from alleged "heresy."

How do we tell the difference between what the JW's and Mormons bring from that which we have from God? Easy! All that other stuff takes away from God and a focus on what He wants to do and has demonstratably done. Holding to the bible is really no guarantee of rightness either, because what happens when we twist what scripture says or means, or misinterpret it (purposely or otherwise). In that case we are no different than outright cultists and mystery religionists.

I guess we need to ask what is the purpose for taking a pro-view of inerrancy is all about. IF we genuinely plumb the depths of that question we'll be aghast at where we end up.

As far as christian cults go, more of the accepted/orthodoxy is cultish if not a cult than those believers who reject such. Lets talk about what "cult" is and what "heresy" is and then go back and look at so-called ecclesiastical history and we'll have to make some admission we'd not like to...

P31W, no doubt many believe these things for good reasons. But medieval believers also believed sincerely, and with good purposes in mind, that the earth was flat.
Click to expand...


It's yes or no. Do you believe the origional God breathed text of scripture were without error.

BTW, when I ask someone a direct question I want to hear what "they think" not someone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it odd that people who desire to knock the doctrine of "inerrancy" refuse to discuss the actual doctrine and instead go off in directions that don't amount to a hill of beans.
 
This is a great introduction to the doctrine of inerrancy. It is written by Dr.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School


"Whereas inspiration concerns the origin of the Bible's authority, inerrancy describes its nature.

By inerrancy we refer not only to the Bible's being 'without error' but also to its inability to err (we might helpfully illustrate this point by comparing it to the distinction between Jesus' sinlessness or being without sin, on the one hand, and his impeccability or inability to sin on the other).

Inerrancy, positively defined, refers to a central and crucial property of the Bible, namely, its utter truthfulness.

The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself.

First, if God is perfect - all-knowing, all-wise, all-good - it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles.

Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written.

Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path.

If the biblical and theological basis of the doctrine is so obvious, however, why have some in our day suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? Is it true, as some have argued, that the doctrine of inerrancy was 'invented' in the nineteenth century at Princeton by B B Warfield and Charles Hodge and is therefore a novelty in the history of theology?

In answer to this question, it is important to remember that doctrines arise only when there is need for them. Doctrine develops when something implicit in the faith is denied; false teaching provokes an explicit rebuttal. This is as true of inerrancy as it is of the doctrines of the Trinity, or of justification by faith.

The notion of the Bible's truthfulness was implicitly assumed throughout the history of the church."
 
The last part about doctrine being developed...........we are living at a perfect time to see this occruing.

Marriage in the Jewish and Chrisitan faiths has always been understood as a union between a man and a woman. Now we are forced to put that into formal doctrine.
 
More of Dr. Vanhoozer:

"What then does the doctrine of biblical inerrancy explicitly articulate?

We can refine our provisional definition of inerrancy in terms of truthfulness as follows: The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture, in the original manuscripts and when interpreted according to the intended sense, speaks truly in all that it affirms.

These specifications, by identifying the conditions under which Scripture speaks truly, do not hasten the death of inerrancy by qualification; they rather acknowledge two crucial limitations that enable believers to keep the doctrine in its proper perspective. Let us examine these two qualifications in more detail.

First: the Bible speaks truly 'in the original manuscripts'. We have already seen that the Reformers were able to affirm the truthfulness of the Bible and to acknowledge errors due to faulty translation or transmission. To the objection that we do not now possess the original manuscripts, it must be pointed out that textual critical studies have brought us extremely close to the original text. The relatively small number of textual variations do not for the most part affect our ability to recognize the original text. At the same time, it is important not to ascribe inerrancy to the copies of the originals, since these are the products of an all-too human process of transmission.

The second qualification is just as important: 'when interpreted according to the intended sense'. It is often tempting to claim the same authority for one's interpretations as for the biblical text itself. The thrust of the doctrine of inerrancy, however, like that of sola scriptura, is to stress the distinction between the Word of God and the words of men. Interpretations of the Bible fall under the category 'words of men'. It is thus important not to ascribe inerrancy to our interpretations. To the objection that we do not possess the correct interpretation, we must appeal not to inerrancy but to the perspicuity of Scripture. What conflicts there are about biblical interpretation ultimately must be ascribed to the fallible interpreter, not to the infallible text.

Does inerrancy therefore mean that every word in Scripture is literally true?

There has been a great deal of confusion on this point, both in the media and in academia. It should first be noted that mere words are neither true nor false; truth is a property of statements. Second, those who oppose biblical inerrancy have all too often contributed to the confusion by caricaturing the notion of literal truth. Critics of inerrancy typically speak of 'literal truth' when what they really mean is 'literalistic truth'. Defenders of inerrancy must take great care to distinguish the notion of literal truth from the kind of literalistic interpretation that runs roughshod over the intent of the author and the literary form of the text.

(I've enjoyed reading his materials on inerracy.)
 
P31W, I can't answer your question because it is a question that presupposes things that can't be presupposed. What I am saying isn't some cute word play trick... Your question is like someone asking you if you believe that God can do anything, can He then make a rock so big He can't pick it up...? (I am just illustrating the tendency of presupposition in a question.) The entrance into such a question is a trap, and so it is with inerrancy. As in my article, I clearly wrote of the different aspects of what inerrancy could mean, some of which present epic problems for the people trying to support their doctrine. If you read my article, you would see my points, if that is what you want to see. If you want to believe inerrancy, be my guest. I don't need inerrancy when I can have Jesus.

You quoted some doctor of theology (the same types who get us into jams with all their other theology). Well, I shall quote one who was tortured for Christ on the matter. Which do you prefer to believe, someone who theorizes in good sounding "doctrine" who's never been put to the test or someone who lived in the testing and won out where theology and novel ideas won't and can't fly?

Wurmbrand:
“God is ‘the Truth.’ The Bible is ‘the truth about the Truth.’ Theology is ‘the truth about the truth about the Truth.’ Fundamentalism is ‘the truth about the truth about the truth about the Truth.’ Christian people live in these many ‘truths’ about the Truth, and, because of them, they have not ‘the Truth’. Hungry, beaten and doped, we had forgotten theology and the Bible. We had forgotten the ‘truths about the Truth,’ therefore we lived in ‘the Truth.'"

In my humble opinion, I trust what cannot be beaten out of a person and what allows them to endure given the most vicious circumstances.

I've seen what beliefs in a belief do to folks and I can't see the christlikeness in it. Of what need to we have for Christ if His book is deemed "inerrant"? Without realizing it, what you are in essence saying is that God is the book. And the problems with that proposition is epic. You can control the book, others can control the book (as they have) and God is then muzzled: no one need listen to Him anymore. The book supposedly does all the speaking for Him now. Do you realize how Deistic this forces God to be in the minds, lives and involvements of people?

Of what good is inerrancy if people cannot read it (even if it were true in all senses)? Its amazing that for many centuries after the books of the NT were written, that the VAST majority of people could not read it in its origin form or any form. HOW IS IT, that they were able to know God and do His will without a book or the means to read it?

I shall ask you a serious question, I want you to answers (not a rhetorical one). Please articulate your relationship with God, its aspects and interactions?

What's wrong with the bible being sufficient to lead us unto Christ instead of being an end within itself?

Sincerely I submit this for your considerations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SlickPen50 said:
P31W, I can't answer your question because it is a question that presupposes things that can't be presupposed. What I am saying isn't some cute word play trick... Your question is like someone asking you if you believe that God can do anything, can He then make a rock so big He can't pick it up...? (I am just illustrating the tendency of presupposition in a question.) The entrance into such a question is a trap, and so it is with inerrancy. As in my article, I clearly wrote of the different aspects of what inerrancy could mean, some of which present epic problems for the people trying to support their doctrine. If you read my article, you would see my points, if that is what you want to see. If you want to believe inerrancy, be my guest. I don't need inerrancy when I can have Jesus.

You quoted some doctor of theology (the same types who get us into jams with all their other theology). Well, I shall quote one who was tortured for Christ on the matter. Which do you prefer to believe, someone who theorizes in good sounding "doctrine" who's never been put to the test or someone who lived in the testing and won out where theology and novel ideas won't and can't fly?

Wurmbrand:
“God is ‘the Truth.’ The Bible is ‘the truth about the Truth.’ Theology is ‘the truth about the truth about the Truth.’ Fundamentalism is ‘the truth about the truth about the truth about the Truth.’ Christian people live in these many ‘truths’ about the Truth, and, because of them, they have not ‘the Truth’. Hungry, beaten and doped, we had forgotten theology and the Bible. We had forgotten the ‘truths about the Truth,’ therefore we lived in ‘the Truth.'"

In my humble opinion, I trust what cannot be beaten out of a person and what allows them to endure given the most vicious circumstances.

I've seen what beliefs in a belief do to folks and I can't see the christlikeness in it. Of what need to we have for Christ if His book is deemed "inerrant"? Without realizing it, what you are in essence saying is that God is the book. And the problems with that proposition is epic. You can control the book, others can control the book (as they have) and God is then muzzled: no one need listen to Him anymore. The book supposedly does all the speaking for Him now. Do you realize how Deistic this forces God to be in the minds, lives and involvements of people?

Of what good is inerrancy if people cannot read it (even if it were true in all senses)? Its amazing that for many centuries after the books of the NT were written, that the VAST majority of people could not read it in its origin form or any form. HOW IS IT, that they were able to know God and do His will without a book or the means to read it?

I shall ask you a serious question, I want you to answers (not a rhetorical one). Please articulate your relationship with God, its aspects and interactions?

What's wrong with the bible being sufficient to lead us unto Christ instead of being an end within itself?

Sincerely I submit this for your considerations.
Click to expand...


No is your answer.

You along with the non-believer who posted above believe the origional text of scripture are not truthful when properly interpeted (inerrant).

My God is very capable of accomplishing that simple task. No big deal for the God I worship.

My guess is you also deny the doctrine of the trinity too....at least that would make your views consistant even if both unbiblical and wrong.

Of what need to we have for Christ if His book is deemed "inerrant"? Without realizing it, what you are in essence saying is that God is the book
Click to expand...

You are asking why we need to author of inerrant (truthful) scripture? Do you jest! Have you read scripture? Do you know and worship the God of scripture?



Study the doctrine of inerrancy (truthfulness of scripture) BEFORE you try to fight against it. You are not fighting against the actual doctrine but your own false ideas about what the doctrine is.

When I am starved and tortured to the point I can no longer remember my own name or how to count I will have no other choice but rely on the God to care for me. Until then while I am fat and in a nice home I will continue to love studying and teaching God's word. David a man after God's Own Heart penned God's word to me in Psalms 119. Oh I love that passage! God is speaking directly to me when I read it. It's like I can hear his loving voice instrucitng me in the way I am to live for him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top