Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Sep 1, 2011.
Does this fall under "essential" or "disputable" matters of doctrine?
I would say it is the first or primary essential because everything else that we believe follows from that.
I second Tom's post. I could not be in fellowship with a church that does not affirm that the Bible is Inerrant/Infallible.
But aren't there within the Evangelical tradition "different" ways to understand just what are meant by those two terms?
You hit the nail on the head with this question.......
The actual definitions........
inerrant (în-èr¹ent) adjective
1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors.
infallible (în-fàl¹e-bel) adjective
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
........All of this was only true.......with the original autographs;
Which do not exist any longer!
Therefore.......they do not really believe it, no matter what they may say.
Inerrnacy isn't a foundational/fundamental or core belief. It certainly is a doctrinal belief but not a fundamental.
My exposure to this while in School would lead me to say to say in addition to us holding to full meaning of those terms for the Bible, there are some who hold that Bible 'becomes" word of God when the HS enables you to "receive" it, others that when talking doctrines correct, errors in historical facts and other things!
Also that they think some areas more inspired than others, and also that Apostle paul just was wrong about things like women as preachers/teacher and about alternative lifestyles!
In my church it will not separate you but it will keep you from leadership or teaching in any way if you do not hold to it.
Since I'm Southern Baptist I looked up what the Baptist Faith and Message had to say. Here is the 1st article:
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
It comes short of stating inerrant or infallible, but I feel it tells me that we must approach the scriptures as being true and error free. Of course I don't need this creed to tell me, but I'm glad my denomination stands with a high regard of scripture.
If scripture is fallible and dotted with errors where do we stand--with our feet firmly planted in mid air?
It depends on how you define the two words.
I had one Baptist try to tell me that all versions, all English translations are inerrant and infallible.
How do you define the words?
It all depends on what "is" is.
Yes. The Inerrancy of Scripture is one of the fundamentals of the faith. How could a Christian teach that the Bible is not true.
Are you speaking about the original texts or all translations?
I'm speaking about the words.
Again, you and I would agree on this as being a core/primary doctrine, but there are some baptists even who would hold that bible has "limited" form of Inerreancy/infallibility, word becomes "word" when we encounter it, or else differing degrees of inspiration within it!
Some even says that it extended ONLY to the originals!
It is difficult to seriously suggest that inerrancy is a fundamental belief when one considers that the doctrine wasn't articulated, as used by most Baptists, until about two hundred years ago.
BTW, I hold that the autographs are the inerrant texts. Its part of the ETS statement I sign every year.
Even though actual terms might have been recent times, didn't the Jews and early Church fathers, and reformers pretty much as a whole agree that the Bible was inspired, and infallible etc?