As some of you know many people today (even Calvinists) don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I am of the view that if there is even one error in Scripture it would mean that a verse like 2Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (NASB) would be a lie. In particular I am looking at the words "inspired by God".
What are your thoughts on this matter? Am I all wet?
Why do you say some Calvinists do not ascribe to inerrancy? Sure, there will be some who do not, but are there any respected Pastor or theologian by Bible-believers who do not affirm inerrancy.
I agree, and I think most here, would agree with your assessment of what even one error would do to our faith.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
Why do you say some Calvinists do not ascribe to inerrancy
I have been on a few boards like this one and I have seen those sentiments by Calvinists quite a few times now. I personally do not know any respected Calvinist pastors or theologians that don't hold to the inerrancy of Scripture.
Would you mind giving a little more detail on why you believe that even one error in Scripture would do damage to our faith. I am always looking to expand my knowledge of matters like this.
Would you mind giving a little more detail on why you believe that even one error in Scripture would do damage to our faith. I am always looking to expand my knowledge of matters like this.
If ONE error in your English translation of the Scripture does un-repairable damage to your faith, you had no faith to begin with. While there are no errors in the original texts (which we don't have <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />), there may be errors in our translations/and/or our understanding of such. There are autographas (original biblical manuscripts) and apographas (copies) concerned in your question. John Frame comments;
Quote
"Only the autograph (the original prophetically certified document) is inspired"-because God has not promised inerrant transmission. Scripture itself recognizes a distinction between the original manuscript and the copies. Use of Scripture portions that are obviously copies: 1 Kings 2:3, Prov. 25:1, Ezra 7:14, 2 Tim. 4:13, Luke 4:16-21. So it is not important for us to possess the physical page of the original, but the original message. But Scripture assumes that the teaching of the copies is authoritative because they are faithful to their origin, prophetic and divine. Scripture references to the authority of the original: Ex. 32-34, Deut. 10:2,4, Jer. 36:1-32, Deut. 17:18-20,2 Kings 22, 2 Chron. 34, Deut. 4:2, 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19, Matt. 15:6.
Can we trust our present Bibles?
To the degree that our Bibles reflect the autographic text, they are the Word of God. There are objective means of determining what belongs to the autographic text: textual criticism. Can we be wrong in making this determination? Yes. But one could also err in his understanding of the autographic manuscript. So, the Larger issue: all our knowledge of Scripture, our access to it, is burdened with human fallibility. Even if we had the autographs, we would have imperfect means of understanding their language, their teaching, and even if we had perfect knowledge of the languages, grammar, etc., we would still distort the teaching because of our sin. So having the autograph would not be much help; in fact it might even compound the problem by providing a "holy object" for human idolatry.
God might, to be sure, have imparted infallibility to the whole process by which he transmitted his Word to us. He might have given infallibility not only to the inspiration of the autographs, but also to the copying of these, their publication, their interpretation and application. For His own reasons, however, He determined not to do that. Or He might have chosen to grant infallible autographs, plus an infallible textual tradition, but to leave the interpretation of the text to fallible readers. This is the assumption of those who defend the "majority" text underlying the KJV. But there is no biblical reason to assume that God did either of these things. Rather, He imparted infallibity to the original autograph and then left the rest of the process of transmission to fallible human beings.
The question, then, is: of what use is an inspired, infallible text when our only access to it is humanly fallible? The "infallible autograph" enables us consistently to confess the truthfulness of God. Our access to the text is not merely human, not merely fallible, for the testimony of the Spirit guides us. Van Til's "underwater bridge" --though you can't see it, you're glad it's there. On most all teachings of Scripture, there is room for doubt only on the most skeptical epistemological presuppositions; but these presuppositions are forbidden to the Christian. We must assume that God has spoken clearly and has given us adequate means to learn what he has said. Else, the whole biblical story makes no sense. On these fundamental doctrines, the Spirit builds the regenerate life. They become, to the Christian, the most fundamental presuppositions of life. They are, therefore, convictions of utter certainty, whatever theoretical doubts there may be as to their epistemological justification. In fact, these doctrines, to the believer, are more certain than any extra-biblical epistemological considerations can be. On some areas there is room for debate within the general framework of Christian presuppositions. Here is needed the paradoxical yet practicable combination of boldness and teachability noted earlier in connection with preaching. The N.T. quotes the Septuagint O.T. translation as the word of God,--and sometimes corrects it! Even if we had only the Old Testament, we would have a book which is sufficient to make us "complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work" (II Tim. 3: 17). There is enough redundancy in natural language that loss of a few words (and most textual problems deal only with a few words) or even, sometimes, of a great many, brings little net loss of meaning. Of course there is always some loss - loss of nuance or color if nothing else; and the Christian textual critic must be concerned not to lose anything of God's precious word. But such questions do not detract from the completeness of what we already have. No one can use the incompleteness of our present access to Scripture to excuse himself for disobedience.
Uninspired Preaching and Teaching; Christian Insight. The teaching office continues, though inspiration has ceased. Even during the biblical period, we have no reason to assume that ~ teacher was inspired, especially since, in one sense, the teaching function was universal in the church (the "general office", Col. 3:16, Eph. 4:29, I John 2:27, "word as presence"). Thus we must assume that it is possible to preach the truth without inspiration, i.e., that God uses uninspired people to convey his truth. In such teaching, we cannot say that the teacher is infallible, or that his word has the power and authority associated with God's word. At the same time, insofar as he faithfully and rightly proclaims the word of God that word continues to be fully powerful and fully authoritative, even on the lips of an uninspired person. The Spirit is active in the uninspired preacher if he is preaching obediently. The Spirit brings forth the truth. Therefore, though there is no inspiration, something ~ inspiration is going on. (Second Helvetic Confession, I, "The preaching of the Word is the Word."). There is paradox here: fallibility, but also authority. Practically, it calls us to boldness, combined with teachability.
Especially for the quotes from John Frame. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Is that quote from Frame's book 'Apologetics to the Glory of God' (I think that is the title). I have that book somewhere in my collection of books; I am going to have to go looking for it.
For everyone's interest I thought I would include a smal sample of the Scripture references provided by people who don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. You will probably notice that many of these examples are not very thought out by these people.
God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26 God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19
Arpachshad's son was Shelah - Gen 11:12 Arpachshad's grandson was Shelah - Luke 3:35-36
Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark - Gen 7:2-3 Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19
Terah's lifespan. Acts 7:4 states Terah was dead when Abraham left Haran. According to Gen 11:26, Terah was 70 when Abraham was born and Abraham was 75 when he left Haran. Therefore he lived 70 years (ie. his age when Abraham was born) plus 75 years (Abraham's age when he left Haran - Terah was dead at this time according to Acts 7:4) - 145 years in total. However, Gen 11:32 states he lived 205 years.
God promises Abraham the land of Canaan to live in - Gen 17:8 God did not allow Abraham to live in the promised land - Acts 7:5, Heb 11:8,9,13
Jacob's offspring in Egypt totalled 70 - Gen 46:26-27, Ex 1:5 Jacob's offspring in Egypt totalled 75 - Acts 7:14
Jacob was buried in a cave in Machpelah's field that was bought from Ephron the Hittite - Gen 50:13 Jacob was buried in a tomb at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor - Acts 7:15-16
The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 430 years - Ex 2:40 The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 400 years - Acts 7:6
The Hebrews' journeying - Mount Hor (where Aaron dies), Zalmonah, Punon - Num 33:37,38,41,42 The Hebrews' journeying - Beeroth Benejaakan, Moserah (where Aaron dies), Gudgodah, Jotbathah - Deut 10:6,7
God forbids killing - Ex 20:13 God commands killing - Ex 32:27
Solomon's reign. Acts 13:16-22 numbers the years from when the Hebrews left Egypt to David beginning his reign as 40 (Wilderness) + 450 (Judges) + 40 (Saul) = 530 years. According to 1 Chron 29:27, David reigned 40 years, so Solomon became king (when David died) 530 + 40 years (of David's reign) = 570 years. However, 1 Kings 6:1 states Solomon's 4th year of rule (when he began the Temple building) was 480 years after the Hebrews left Egypt, ie. he began his rule 476 years after the Hebrews left. In sum, there is a contradiction of 94 years.
Saul inquired of God, but God did not answer him - 1 Sam 28:6 Saul died because he did not seek guidance from God - 1 Chron 10:13,14
Jesse had seven children - 1 Sam 16:10-13 Jesse had eight children - 1 Chron 2:13-15
Here is one that only a casual reading of the texts below shows the person can not read very well. In the case of Elhanan it was Goliath's brother, not Goliath. David slays Goliath - 1 Sam 17:4,7,50 Elhanan slays Goliath - 2 Sam 21:19
The quote was from his lectures which should appear in his new book Doctrine of the Word of God, not yet released (of course, it may change somewhat in the edited version). Some of Frame's other lectures and articles may be found at: IIIM
Tom said: As some of you know many people today (even Calvinists) don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I am of the view that if there is even one error in Scripture it would mean that a verse like 2Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (NASB) would be a lie. In particular I am looking at the words "inspired by God".
What are your thoughts on this matter? Am I all wet?
Tom
Not at all! Every attack on the inerrancy of scripture is an attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If we were to find even one error in scripture, we would be setting our reason above scripture. We would no longer be justified by faith alone but our discernment which enables us to determine which parts of God's word are true.
I approach the doctrine of inerrancy by distinguishing between two complimentary definitions for inerrancy. The first being inerrancy as it pertains to the veracity of the actual text of scripture. That would entail the original manuscripts written by the prophets and apostles. Their letters, epistles and so forth were originally inerrant, ie, free from any error factual, historical, etc. However, the nature of handwritten documents is that they will transmit copying errors. It is impossible to escape this phenomonen. However, the uniqueness of the scripture is that God saw fit to have His people make myriads upon myriads of copies and even though all of those copies have transmitted copying errors, the application of textual criticism allows us to ascertain what the original document stated almost to 100 percent accuracy.
Then second, there is inerrancy as it pertains to the actual message contained in scripture. That being the message of the gospel, the historical redemptive story of God's work with His people, etc. Though I have a translation that may have some errancy in it due to translating from original documents and so forth, the nature of textual criticism is such that I can be certain God has preserved his inerrant word and I can proclaim an inerrant message.
As for the examples you give, pretty much all of them can be answered reasonably from the text or with the application of principles of textual criticism. For example, Genesis one lays out a chronological, day by day account of creation, where as chapter two specifically addresses the creation of man on day six. Chapter two is basically looking back at what God had created and the dominion he gave to man. the chapter is not meant to be chronological like the first chapter.
I hope that helps. Your questions may be good foder for my blog.
