Where in the Bible does it claim [I]sola scriptura[/I] and inerrancy?

Men hunger for inerrancy and inerrancy always eludes them.

We place preachers in the pulpits and go listen to their sermons and yet we find them to admit that although God helps them with their sermons they aren't inerrent. Hungering for inerrancy, some elevate the papacy to speaking infallibly ex cathedra, some consider their ayatolloh or guru to be infallible, but we all know such longings are falsely placed.

We translate the scriptures from the original languages as best we can and look for inerrancy there and we are dissapointed. Some will claim their translation is inerrant and will post logic-bending arguements in the KJVO threads on this very board but most of us realize that all translations must inevitably make interpretations here and there and are not granted inerrancy in making those interpretations.

We look for inerrancy in our greek and hebrew texts . . . and we find that the copyists, over the centuries, have made transcription errors. What's an inerrancy hungering bible student to do? Declare a particular copy inerrant, that's what, and we find that there are some people claiming the "textus receptus" is indeed that inerrant version, but there arguments are normally acknowledged to be arbitrary by everybody else . . .

So the original documents are left, and they are what the inerrancy hungering seeker finally pins his hope upon, only they aren't available . . .

But that leads me to ask the question

What difference would it make if God in His respect for humanity allowed humans to introduce a teeny bit of error in recording His inspiration at the time of the original documents just as much as he allowed a teeny bit of error in the textual transmission and a teeny bit of error in the translations and a teeny bit of error in the expositroy presentation of the meaning of the Word?

 

God's nature is being debased by your points of debate.

God is all powerful or ominpotent.

God is all knowing or omniscient.

God is everywhere present or omnipresent.

God is eternal.

God says that He cannot lie. Therefore, since Jesus is God and since Jesus says that God's word is truth, The Holy Bible is perfect, or without error--error being a lie or error being not the truth as truth is an absolute.

cmg

 

Gene said, "What difference would it make if God in His respect for humanity allowed humans to introduce a teeny bit of error in recording His inspiration at the time of the original documents just as much as he allowed a teeny bit of error in the textual transmission and a teeny bit of error in the translations and a teeny bit of error in the expositroy presentation of the meaning of the Word?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the difference brother.
"teeny bit of error"
+
"teeny bit of error"
+
"teeny bit of error"
+
"teeny bit of error"
=
Heresy, cultism, anti-christ, false doctrine.

That's the difference!

Your first mistake in this quote of yours I posted was to claim God has respect for humanity. God is no respecter of persons. Not one bit.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Well, assuming one is always right because of inerrance vs assuming one could be wrong based on unknown sources of error and one had better be careful. . . which is better?

 

I submit that assuming one is right because of inerrancy has resulted in justification for innumerable wrongs through history, including persecution of our baptist forebearers for the sin of refusing to baptize their babies and including the decsision of true believing muslims to take their own life and thereby cause the death of infidels in a suicide bombing.

 

You're right -- there is no such thing as a one-man church.

But what you quoted about "two or three gathered together" has nothing to do with that. That comes from Matt. 18 and has to do with church discipline. The "two or three" refer to the witnesses gathered together to confront and discipline a fellow believer about a sin.

 

With all due respect, what has The Holy Bible to do with homocide bombers?

 

Without error--

Is an attribute of God--also of His Word.

The error comes in when fallen man tries to bring God to the human level and define, analyze, and criticize that which is Divine.

Without an infallible standard, there is no basis for discussion in matters religious.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

With all due respect, what has The Holy Bible to do with homocide bombers? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, they use the Koran for their infallible guidance, of course.

 

Spoken ex-cathedra, of course

 

Let me see....

The Islamists say that the Koran is infallible and they are wrong because it causes homocide bombing, therefore, Christians must be wrong that The Holy Bible is infallible.

I would call that an error in logic.

 

Here you go, Matt. I was surfing on another subject and ran into this answer for you.

web page--Please click here for Rob Bowman on "Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Doctrine of the Authority of Scripture"

 

In the Bible every "alleged error" has always been accounted for and answered. There are no errors in the Bible. It is inspired by God. It is infallible.

The Muslims may say the same thing about the Koran, but are unwilling to hold the Koran up for such scrutiny. The fact is that there are many factual errors in the Koran. G. Archer has at least three pages of documented errors and historical inaccuracies in an appendix in the back of his Introduction to the Old Testament. An inspired book would not be so full of errors and inaccuracies.
The same holds true for the stories of the Book of Mormon, also claimed to be Scripture.
DHK

 

I think you are viewing this too woodenly, Matt. The issue is whether the Bible is God's word or not. If it is God's word, then that makes it a final authority. It has nothing to do with finding a verse that says "The Bible is inerrant," because, of course, the whole Bible was not complete when most books were written.

That is why I don't like to use terms like Sola Scriptura if I can avoid it, because those terms come laden with straw man arguments by opponents of this view.

The Bible is God's word or it isn't. And it's the final authority or it isn't. That's the decision. If it is, then it is a final authority unless one wants to argue, on the one hand, that someone like the Pope or the hierarchical church has authority over or equal to that, or, on the other hand, that one can follow the guidance of the HS over the Bible (of course, the HS will not contradict the Bible but some people claim to get additional "revelations").

So if say the Bible is not the final authority, then who or what is?

 

Here is an interesting statement, Marcia, by Rob Bowman. I think that it pertains to your wise question, "So if say the Bible is not the final authority, then who or what is?":


Those who refuse to regard Scripture as their ultimate authority must and do put something else in its place – typically the Church or their religious organization or modern prophet, or their reason, or their own spiritual experiences or intuitions. May we conclude that Roman Catholics are guilty of ecclesiolatry, for example?