1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Biblical Inerrancy vs. Biblical Infallibility

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Humble Disciple, Jul 19, 2021.

  1. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is a difference between Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility. While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.

    The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus.

    When assessing ancient documents by normal historical standards, their reliability isn't determined by exactness in every possible detail:

    [​IMG]
     
    #1 Humble Disciple, Jul 19, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2021
  2. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jesus most likely cleansed the temple near the end of His ministry, like in the synoptic Gospels, rather than in the beginning, like in John. This would explain why the Jewish authorities were provoked to execute Him.

    John, on the other hand, placed it in the beginning, in order to establish Jesus' authority over the temple as the Son of God, since the primary emphasis of John's Gospel is the deity of Christ.

    This is only a problem if one insists that the Bible is inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice.
     
  3. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Those who hold to unlimited inerrancy insist that the Bible is inerrant in every possible detail, while those who hold to limited inerrancy, also known as Biblical infallibility, regard the Bible as inerrant in matters of doctrine and practice.

    In traditional Jewish commentaries, the Book of Job might be entirely allegorical, rather than a historical account. This is only a problem if the Bible is seen as inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice:

    That the Book of Job might be an allegorical theodicy doesn't give us license to interpret Jesus' virgin birth and physical resurrection allegorically, because these truths are essential to historic Christian faith, just as the giving of the Commandments on Sinai is central to Judaism.
     
  4. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    246
    Faith:
    Baptist
    more FALSE teachings!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    303
    Faith:
    Baptist
    how about Him cleansing it 2 times?

    all accounts are correct. No other explanation other than Jesus insisting on pure unadulterated Worship

    right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While it's certainly possible that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, it's not required for the Gospels to be reliable accounts.

    It's simply an unprovable assumption that the Gospel authors intended for the events described to be placed in a strictly chronological, rather than thematic, order.

    Like William Lane Craig, I believe in limited inerrancy, that the Bible is inerrant on matters of doctrine and practice, rather than in every scientific and historical detail. The Bible, like Jesus, is fully divine and fully human.

    To insist upon unlimited inerrancy seems like docetism, ignoring the element of human authorship. We have four Gospels specifically to give us four uniquely human, though divinely inspired, perspectives.

    The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine sets out to disprove the Gospels simply by pointing out discrepancies between the virgin birth and resurrection accounts. It's a complete joke compared to what they know today about how ancient history was actually written, but liberal theologians like John Shelby Spong still use the same arguments.
     
    #6 Humble Disciple, Jul 20, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
  7. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    246
    Faith:
    Baptist
    RANK HERESY!!!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Scripture More Accurately

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2020
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    54
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Limited inerrancy is false teaching that should be denounced in the strongest possible terms. If the Bible is full of errors, it is not the Word of God!

    How is this even being allowed to be posted on this site?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG]

    I'm not sharing anything that isn't already taught in evangelical seminaries. Even Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ is saying the same things.

    Those who believe in limited inerrancy have a higher view of scripture than Martin Luther did:

    The Gospels were written to provide reliable accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, despite contradicting each other on minor details. Those who understand how ancient histories were written do not see the minor discrepancies as reason to doubt their veracity.

    While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there:

    This same point is made in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, one of the best-selling evangelical titles in the last twenty years.
     
    #9 Humble Disciple, Jul 20, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
  10. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please let me say this again, I'm not sharing anything that isn't already taught in evangelical seminaries.

    There is a historical difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and the scholars interviewed in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, including William Lane Craig, would be considered evangelical, but not fundamentalist.

    Knowledge of church history and Biblical scholarship isn't something to be afraid of.

    While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there, just as the Gospels contradict each other on minor details like how many angels were at the tomb, while agreeing on Jesus' physical resurrection.

    These are things you would learn in your first quarter of evangelical seminary. This is 101 level information.
     
    #10 Humble Disciple, Jul 20, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
  11. Scripture More Accurately

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2020
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    54
    Faith:
    Baptist
    John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

    If the Bible is wrong about earthly things, it cannot be believed about heavenly things. Limited inerrantists lead people astray into accepting false views that are not biblical.

    2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    Based on what limited inerrantists teach, we have to reject what God says about all Scripture being profitable for doctrine and buy into the false teaching that only those certain parts of Scripture that are free from error are profitable for doctrine.

    Those who teach limited inerrancy will answer to Christ some day.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    These are things you would learn in your first quarter of evangelical seminary. This is 101 level information.

    So far, no one has made any real effort to actually address the apparent contradictions presented here:

    While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there, just as the Gospels contradict each other on minor details like how many angels were at the tomb, while agreeing on Jesus' physical resurrection.

    There is a historical difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and the scholars interviewed in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, including William Lane Craig, would be considered evangelical, but not fundamentalist.

    Those who believe in limited inerrancy have a higher view of scripture than Martin Luther did:

    The Bible, like Jesus, is fully divine and fully human. To insist upon unlimited inerrancy seems like docetism, ignoring the element of human authorship. We have four Gospels specifically to give us four uniquely human, though divinely inspired, perspectives.
     
    #12 Humble Disciple, Jul 20, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
  13. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    246
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Limited Inerrancy is from the devil himself. Regardless of who believes in this doctrine of demons
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Those who insist upon unlimited inerrancy miss the point as to why the scriptures were written in the first place, "to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," to instruct in righteousness, to equip for every good work, and to correct false doctrine, none of which requires that the Bible be word-for-word inerrant on every possible historical and scientific detail.

    2 Timothy 3:15-17
    and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
     
  15. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,363
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Or if one insists he could not have done so twice.
     
  16. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The point is that it isn't necessary for the cleansing to have happened twice for the Gospels to be reliable in their account that it happened, not to deny the possibility that it could have happened twice.

    It's simply an unprovable assumption that the Gospel authors intended for the events described to be placed in a strictly chronological, rather than thematic, order.

    Those who insist upon unlimited inerrancy miss the point as to why the scriptures were written in the first place, "to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," to instruct in righteousness, to equip for every good work, and to correct false doctrine, none of which requires that the Bible be word-for-word inerrant on every possible historical and scientific detail.

    There is a historical difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and the scholars interviewed in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, including William Lane Craig, would be considered evangelical, but not fundamentalist.

    While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there, just as the Gospels contradict each other on minor details like how many angels were at the tomb, while agreeing on Jesus' physical resurrection.

    I have not shared anything that you wouldn't learn at a mainstream evangelical seminary. If you don't like that reality, then don't give them your money.

    The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy, or limited and unlimited inerrancy, matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus. This is exactly what happened to Bart Ehrman, because he had a wrong view of inerrancy.
     
    #16 Humble Disciple, Jul 20, 2021
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
  17. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If unlimited inerrancy were true, then the mustard seed would be the smallest of all seeds, which it obviously isn't. Jesus' point was to illustrate the power of faith, even if the size of a mustard seed, rather than teach botany. Matthew 13:31-32
     
  18. SavedByGrace

    SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2020
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    246
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So Jesus Christ Who is Almighty God is wrong??? You are promoting demonic heresy!!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    704
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, it is not a problem for an "inerrantist" either, as long as the interpreter understands that the scriptures were not written in a modern way, heavily influenced by Greek philosophers and especially the 'Enlightenment' thinkers. Ancient writers did not feel confined to sequential order and would sometimes write thematically, or place true events next to each other to support a premise. You can see that from time to time in the Gospels, with the Gospel of John being the strongest example of that, built around seven signs that demonstrates Jesus is the Christ.
     
  20. Humble Disciple

    Humble Disciple Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, thank you. That's exactly what I've been saying. If unlimited inerrancy is the only acceptable position, then we might as well throw The Case for Christ in the trash, despite leading thousands to Jesus.

    One of the main points of the book is that, while every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there, just as the Gospels contradict each other on minor details like how many angels were at the tomb, while agreeing on Jesus' physical resurrection.

    If unlimited inerrancy were true, then the mustard seed would be the smallest of all seeds, which it obviously isn't. Jesus' point was to illustrate the power of faith, even if the size of a mustard seed, rather than teach botany. Matthew 13:31-32
     
Loading...