Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, Sep 25, 2012.
Is that essential doctrine?
You present 3 different concepts.
I accept the Bible as containing sufficient information for (to regulate) faith and practice. I suppose "inspired" covers that.
It depends what you mean by each of those statements. I would agree that each statement is true with in the confines of what you are speaking about. I believe that the bible is Inerrant/Inspired and Infallible in all that it asserts. But that doesn't mean it doesn't come from a particular perspective biased on that perpective. And it doesn't mean that the bible should be used as a science book.
For instance let me bring up some difficult points to see what your thoughts on this matter are. Now keep in mind I'm not trying to challenge your faith that the bible is all of these things which it is but just trying to clarify for you that what you mean by each statement must be properly defined or people can run slipshod over you.
Matthew 2:23 says
Now this might very well be true but by using Scripture alone you face the difficulty that no where in the OT does it say "that he would be called a Nazarene" nor is Nazareth mention or anyone from Nazareth is mentioned anywhere in the old testiment.
Matthew 27:9-10 says
Which also may very well be true but once again by holding only to scripture you find that there is no such text in the book of Jeremiah. Now some will say that what Matthew is refering to is Zachariah 11:10-13 but then you face several problems. 1) Jeremiah is not Zachariah (error?) 2) that passage doesn't say what Matthew is saying
John 2:13-17 says
Supposedly this fullfills psalm 69:9
The problem with this attribution is 1) its isn't a prophesy for the Messiah and 2) the speaker in psalms says as I expand the text
and from the King James
which is problematic because Jesus is neither a fool, guilty, nor a sinner. So what did the Apostles remember?
Also John 13:33 says
and this statement is questioned by Peter in Vs. 36
after Jesus gives a little discourse Thomas also asks John 14:4
and Jesus gives further teachings and instructions and begins to wrap it up in John 16:says
When it was clear two apostles already asked him that.
Just some food for thought as you ponder how you take each of these points with regard to biblical Innerrancy, Inspiration, and infallibility and what it is you really mean.
good points addressed, should have spelled out how I view each concept!
Inspired means that the Holy Spirit guided and made sure their writtings were just the same as God speaking it directly"Thus sayth the Lord"
Inerrant means that there are NO errors within the bible, either historical/scienctific/spiritual...
Infallible means that it is the final and only source for our theology/doctrines and opractices, as it alone is the assured revealtion from God!
ALL of that applies to the originals.....
We can agree to your first point. However, points two and three are problematic. Consider your statement about biblical inerrancy
If your what you believe true about the bible with regard to scientific how do you reconcile such issues as
Scientifically the bible is in error because insects have 6 legs not 4. Or how about this one?
This is problematic because when measuring the circumference of the circle described here with a diameter of 10 cubits we would get a cirumference of 31.4159265358979 or 10 times pi and not 30. Or how about where Genesis says
The moon is not its own light source but reflects the light. And there are many others than these. So I think you may want to re-evaluate your definition for inerrant.
And as far as infallible that isn't even close to the definition of infalibility which is defined as
and with all the verses I've pointed out you may want to reconsider.
I will explain how I look at these latter two.
Let me start with the first one first because its the simplist. Infallibility of the bible I would say is best understood as it being
as far as biblical inerrancy I hold that
I do believe all three concepts are applicable to Scripture and I believe it is essential. If we are comfortable with explaining away any part of Scripture we have opened a door to question or deny any part and all parts of it. For example, if I explained away the creation account of Genesis 1 in favor of evolution then right from the start I have opened the door to doubt and denial of the rest. If I cannot trust what he says about creation why should I trust Him concerning what He says about salvation?
believe in verbal, plenary inspiration which would include inerrancy. I think it is vital.
Those terms undefined are the can of worms.
Each one depending on the definition could find me supporting them or rejecting them.
Not essential in my book
I do as well.
I agree entirely with the first part of your post. However, I do believe that properly defined it is essential that you hold to those scriptural attributes for your spiritual growth. Now if what you mean by essential is whether what you believe about those attributes of scripture is salvific; I would agree that it isn't.
But if you hold to a bible that may contain errors in it, and is NOT a completely inspired/revelation from God, how can we be sure on salvation aspect within it?
Then we can't be saved unless we know the mind of God?
You make two errors. First, containing errors can be due to a lot of things. typographical, etc... and just because there may be such errors doesn't preclude that something is uninspired or a revelation from God. 2ndly, I am not suggesting, as I've made clear in a previous post, that the bible is uninspired. My suggestion is that your definition of what you mean is lacking and can easily be challenged as I've done just to show you problems. My suggestion is that you revamp how you define each of those terms. God never suggested to any one or gave anyone revelation that the bible is a scientific book, or a dictionary, or without bias, etc... What God does guarantee us from the bible is that it is the entirely innerrent, infallible, and inspired word of God to lead us to Salvation showing us the plan of God, his attributes and our relationship to him.
Also consider this and many protestants quickly overlook this simple truth. When Jesus lived the vast majority of people were illiterate unable to read or write. Most of what they knew was told to them by someone they considered authoritative. Most people knew scriptures by memorizing them by having scriptures constantly repeated to them. Education was not as easily accessible then as it is today. So accordingly to believe that someone couldn't be saved because they couldn't read the bible to have correct thoughts about the bible is ludicrous. Jesus never said have in order to be saved you must have a belief that scriptures are innerrent, or infallable. Jesus said to be saved you must have faith. I'm Certain the theif on the cross didn't have your believe about the scriptures yet he is with Jesus Christ.
The Bible is inerrant. It is inerrant because it is true and absolutely correct in all its doctrines. Copiest errors do not make scripture errant.
I agree with you. I never said the bible wasn't inerrant. However, according to Yeshua in errant means there are no errors and copiest errors are just that errors in the text we have but those errors don't affect its doctrines or cause error in doctrines. The bible cannot be viewed as a dictionary nor as a scientific manual. And neither should it be. However, if you go around believe the bible to be a scientific manual you'll go around believing pi to be 3.0 rather than 3.14 or that insects only have four legs etc... and end up making the same errors many who would not change from the standard model during Galileo's day and believe that the cosmos are geocentric. When this isn't what God asserts in his scriptures as God is asserting the truth for our salvation. I you don't like what I said how about listening to a baptist preacher on the topic
I hold to the Holy Spirit inspiring the bible but I don't think a text book of science is what he had in mind. Kremer continues
The argument "the Bible cannot be viewed as a scientific manual" is not credible.(usually used by those who hold to evolution) It is not credible because it serves no purpose to say it. Where scripture speaks on scientific things it is inerrant. Not being a scientific manual does not change that.
Thank you for saying that!:thumbsup:
Its very credible when the bible says pi = 3.0 or that insects have 4 legs or that the moon is its own light source or that a bat is a bird or that Absoloms hair weighed 5 lbs or that the earth doesn't spin on its axis or travels around the sun and on and on it goes. Each of these things the bible speaks on these things and thus "where scripture speaks on scientific things it is inerrant" qualifier is met and found not to be accurate. Thus your definition of inerrancy is faulted.
If we can't tell the difference between "pale" and "green" from the text then the text is not inerrant.
>You make two errors. First, containing errors can be due to a lot of things. typographical, etc... and just because there may be such errors doesn't preclude that something is uninspired or a revelation from God.
The textual errors are predestined? That's interesting. Is God correcting his own text?