The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Scripture Inherency

Still haven't had a lot of time to think about his response to me; however his answer makes me think that perhaps he might believe that if there are errors in Scripture it only means that the word "inspiration" doesn't mean there are no errors in Scripture. It would means that the message is inspired, but not the human author's errors.
In other words God inspired the message, but not every jot and title.

Not sure if that is what he believes, but I am trying to understand his reasoning.

No more bites on this topic?

You wrote that you're trying to understand what the author means.

As foggy as his reply seems, it's still obvious that he wants his Christianity "cafeteria style." He'd rather just pick and choose to believe whatever he wishes and disregard the rest. If the scriptures are inerrant, perspicuous, and binding upon all men in all times and places, then that frustrates his purpose.

It's the same lie that the serpent used in the garden: "Did God really say ... ?"

I wouldn't waste my time with this guy's self-serving speculations.

Your use of the word "bait" is ironic, bro, since you're the one that bit.

-Robin

1. Without an INFALLIBLE and INERRANT record of the historical events, one cannot know with any certainty that they actually occurred, never mind being able to know what they mean, etc.

2. The life and death of Christ is but a part of the whole, albeit a major part. Without a knowledge of creation, the Fall, the history of redemption (Covenant of Grace), all the prophesies that preceded and foretold of the coming of the Redeemer, etc., etc., the appearance and execution of a man named Jesus has no special significance in and of itself. And if the biblical record; the OT, is not inerrant, then again, truth is unobtainable. You are left with nothing more than an arbitrary 'picking & choosing' of what you want to believe is true... aka: relativity and no absolutes.

3. The argument for the spread of the gospel via oral transmission is inadequate at best. We read in Scripture that there were many false prophets and false teachers going around during the time of the Apostles, preaching and teaching a false gospel. So, how can one know that what the Apostles taught was any less fallible and errant than what anyone else was proclaiming at that time? And how do you know what was taught orally? The Roman State Church makes a claim that 'oral tradition' is infallible, but there is no record of what was said apart from Scripture, which is rather amusing.

4. The Bible claims to be the 'God-breathed' written Word of God. If there are errors contained in the original manuscripts, then one is forced to logically conclude that either God made a 'mistake', God lied, or God could not control what the writers actually wrote, thus making God a deceiver... all of which results in a book that is no more reliable than any other book written by fallen men.

5. Lastly, although much more could be said on this matter, the question needs to be asked, "IF the Bible is not inerrant, how does one determine what is true and factual and what is false?" One's eternal destiny depends upon believing and living what is right and true. Personally, I'll let Jesus' understanding of Scripture determine that, for He said,

Contrary to the man-centered ditty often heard quoted in Fundamentalist circles, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That does it." The child of God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit can only say, "The Bible says it. That does it. Therefore I believe it."

Yes, that is just speculation on your part. However, IF he or anyone else holds that the "message" is inspired but not every "jot and title" is inspired, then they have a serious and insurmountable problem. For words are comprised of a combination of 'jots and tittles' and thus without them, there can be no words, and without words, there is no message. This is similar to those advocating 'Dynamic Equivalency' vs. 'Formal Equivalency', who say it's not the words that are important, but the meaning (message) which is important. But again, how can you have any understanding without the words themselves? Change one letter in one word and the entire meaning could be radically changed and even antithetical to the original.

And once again, repeating myself here from what I've written in response elsewhere in this thread, if there are errors in the Bible, how does one know what is an error and what is true? You either accept the Bible's own testimony concerning itself as being the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God, or you reject that claim and thus all you have is a compilation of the musings of various and diverse authors that have no special meaning nor authority.

Robin
Please forgive my bad attempt at interjecting a little humour into this thread.

Concerning my biting on this topic, why wouldn't I bite?
Considering that site is supposed to be Reformed and has helped me in the past.
To a lessor extent it is kind of like if Pilgrim made some statements like the article made.
Would I bite?
You bet I would. Regardless of the fact I feel a little ill equipped to match Pikgrim when it comes to knowledge of such matters.
Tom

Hi Pilgrim
A have made a rough draft of how I want ro respond to him. I want to do so without giving too much detail, therefore I have cut it to the bare bones.
Here is what I m thinking of saying.

Tom

1. Did this person actually say that the Scriptures do NOT make the person and work of Jesus less real? Perhaps I missed something in what you provided in the communication he sent to you. I have a hard time imagining someone would actually suggest that reading the biblical account of Christ would diminish the reality of His actual earthly appearance and the redemptive work He accomplished. Can you explain why you would tell this man you agree with this statement? What was it that precipitated him making such a statement?

2. It is absolutely true that the LORD Christ had an extremely high view of Scripture. But so did the prophets and apostles. There are myriad instances where they used the phrase, "Thus saith the LORD...", referring to both the written Word that already existed and/or the verbal/Spirit communication given to them. But in your response you hit on most all the excellencies of Scripture EXCEPT the one thing which is contentious... INERRANCY!

3. Now, you are certainly free to respond to this individual in any manner you so choose. However, I would suggest to you that unless you undermine his premise by exposing its inherent errancy, you will be wasting both your time and his time. For the last time, for I believe it is not worth repeating again henceforth since I have made this clear several times already, that IF there are errors in Scripture, propositional and absolute truth cannot be known, for how can one discover the truth from error. Either one accepts the entirety of Scripture as God-breathed, guided by the Holy Spirit, working those chosen to record the revelation of God perfectly, and thus they possess the attributes of infallibility and inerrancy, or one must deem the Bible as simply the compilation of the writings of fallible men who wrote some worthwhile things that can improve one's life... aka: moralism.

4. The doctrine of the full divine inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and thus supreme authority of the Scriptures has been one of the foundational doctrines of the true Church since the beginning. It has come under attack in every age by those who have little or no desire to submit to ALL that it teaches. For example in more recent times, in 1924 the PCUSA issued the "The Auburn Affirmation" within which it states that it is imperative that for the sake of unity, not only within the PCUSA denomination itself, but unity among the other various denominations, that it is in error to state that the Bible has but one right and true interpretation. For, there are myriad views held by men that differ, some of which are antithetical to each other, yet it must be understood that tolerance and acceptance of these views is essential so as to preserved the oneness that exists between all who profess Christ as Lord... and even those who do not.

Now, how did it come to pass that such a statement could be made? As is typically true of all heresy, it was made possible because the doctrine of divine inspiration, which by the definition adopted by the true Church and as taught by the Scriptures themselves, inherently includes the attributes of infallibility and inerrancy. Men may differ on their interpretation, understanding and/or application of the Bible. But the Bible itself contains only ONE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. This is a truism which has even closer to home been rejected by the OPC and PCA denominations. The prevailing opinion is that one must accept a hermeneutic of Scripture that is multi-perspectival, i.e., that doctrine will differ depending upon the perspective of the reader. Thus, within the OPC and PCA, the various views on Genesis 1 are compatible; literal 24 hour 6-day creation, Framework theory, Gap Theory, etc.

The bottom line with all these errors is that they all share the view, which they invariably and categorically deny, that there is no absolute truth. Coming back to this foolish man you are communicating with, without a Scripture that is 100% infallible and inerrant, one cannot know anything as true. All that you have is relativity, which is what the world believes... "The only thing that is absolute is relativity" is the popular view. But that statement is inherently contradictory for it is proclaiming an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn't exist.

Fascinating discussion

Pilgrim
Perhaps I should reword it to say something like if we were talking theoretical, I would agree with you...
Concerning the word inerrant, although I did not mention that particular word, I think what I mentioned does cover it.

Tom

Here's my problem... I don't recall the author saying, "The Scriptures don’t make the person and work of Jesus less real.". IF he did say that, what exactly is the point he is trying to convey? It sounds like as if he is elevating the actual historic reality of Christ's living on earth over Scripture and even with the errors that Scripture has [implied], the truth of His existence isn't compromised. Now, IF that is what he is positing, would you then be in agreement with him?

And, re: you failing to mention the word "inerrant", since that is the main focus of your conversation with him and the point being disputed, it would behoove you, IMHO, to use the word without wavering. If for no other reason, it would keep the conversation on track.

Oh, and as I was pondering this subject, I was wondering since this man rejects the inerrancy of the Bible, yet believes one can know truth, would he then affirm that other religious sacred texts are no less a source of truth since they claim to have come from God yet they have obvious errors in them, for example, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, etc.? And IF he would deny the premise, then what is it about the Bible that sets it apart from any other 'sacred text'?

Pilgrim 
You have said several times now that the writer of the article does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet the author himself stated that he does believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
The problem I see, is he sees the work of Christ and Scripture as something that can be separated.
Though a proper understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy should show otherwise, clearly he doesn't see it. Therefore he has an incomplete understanding of the doctrine and I am saying that giving him the benefit of the doubt,
I asked the question 
"Can someone who claims that Jesus is Lord reject Jesus' view of Scripture?" I think the answer is obvious and should be sufficient to show how important this matter is.
We can not separate the work of Jesus Christ and Scripture inerrancy. my reply in the hope that somehow it would show that you can not separate the work of Christ and inerrancy.
As I also stated he is treating the Bible as though it was just a record of revelation, yet it is revelation itself.
I thought I would let you know that not only have I been reading articles on the subject, the Highway is not the only place I have asked for help.
I am having an e-mail conversation with Dr. Thomas Ascoll of Founders Ministries and he thinks the man is talking in theoretical terms, otherwise he couldn't say what he did. But he also said rightly that we live in reality, not the theoretical. 

Tom

Yes, he has said he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but then turns around and says the Bible could contain error. He also says that it is the historical events that Christianity is founded upon and not the Bible. But for the last time... Without the Bible, the divinely inspired, infallible, INERRANT, written Word of God, you could know nothing of those events. The premise is simple enough, is it not? Oral tradition wasn't sufficient to carry the truth and thus a WRITTEN record, originating from God was used according to the eternal foreordination of God Himself.

You are correct, that the Bible is not just a 'witness' to the revelation of God, it is THE revelation of God. The former was made popular by Karl Barth who taught that the Bible only contains the record of what men witnessed concerning Christ. The Bible isn't THE Word of God but rather it BECOMES the Word of God when one has an ethereal experience when reading it. Barth too held that it was the reality of the events that are true and reliable but not necessarily Scripture UNTIL an existential experience occurs. But notice what is similar between what this man believes and what Barth believed... they are both focusing upon a narrow 'event' in history; the incarnation, life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But one needs to ask about the majority of the rest of Scripture, e.g., the Old Testament which foreshadowed and foretold of the coming of Christ. Are they not just as divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant? Without the Old Testament, you couldn't have a New Testament, for the NT is estimated to be 65% OT quotes, allusions, etc.

This is what the LORD Christ said concerning the necessity of the written Word of God and the Old Testament in particular, which testified of Him and without which no one would or could believe on Him.

And again,

And but one more from the inspired pen of Paul,

And one must ask, What is it that is preached? It is the written Word of God, for without that divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant written Word, those historical events would never be known, never mind understood. But, if that written Word was errant, i.e., it contained error, it would be impossible to know if anything written about Christ was actually true, even though Christ is "the Truth", He being God of very God.

I'll leave you to your other sources and this confused individual with his theoretical musings. Is this person's premise not too similar to the old philosophical riddle, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?" The answer, of course, is "yes", it makes a sound (historical event). But if you never hear that sound, you will never know it fell. You either have to be there personally to see, hear, touch that which occurs or it will be practically non-existent UNLESS you have an absolutely true record of the event through which the Holy Spirit of God bears upon your mind, heart and soul. It is the Spirit who works in and through the written Word that is critical and thus the foundation of Christianity.

That's my

Pilgrim
There is nothing in what you said that I would disagree with, except maybe the fact that I am not sure he meant what you think he meant when he said that (as you put it) I think we have both said enough about that aspect.
However, in the end you are correct that what matters is without the divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, those historical events would never be known, never mind understood.

Part of me is quite disappointed in the fact that the article is supposedly written on a Reformed site, which has been of some help for me in the past. Though I need to admit that just because a site is recommended to me by a respected Reformed Christian, that it necessarily is a Reformed site. Nor does it mean that just because a site carries some good articles; that it should not be read with care and discernment.

Tom

Hi
For those who have been following this thread this morning as I was reading the weekend addition of the devotional I read (Table Talk), there was an interview of Dr. Stephen Nichols, where part of the interview fit right in with the doctrine of inerrancy and I thought you might be interested in reading it.

Table Talk: Why are you concerned with defending the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture in this day and age?

Stephen Nichols: Defending inerrancy is necessary precisely because it is being challenged and even jettisoned by many who would claim to be evangelical. The doctrine of inerrancy reminds us that the Bible is God’s authoritative and trustworthy Word to us. My concern is with alternative views, and especially with the consequences of those alternatives. If you do not hold to inerrancy, what do you have? Essentially, you have limited inerrancy. That has the Bible submitting to us-to our judgment. That has it all topsy-turvy. The doctrine of Scripture is the domino, so to speak. If it falls in the wrong direction, the whole chain of dominoes falls in the wrong direction.