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:
Biblical Inerrancy vs. Biblical Infallibility
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Humble Disciple, Jul 19, 2021.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
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. -
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:
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
Marooncat79 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
all accounts are correct. No other explanation other than Jesus insisting on pure unadulterated Worship
right? -
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. -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
Scripture More Accurately Well-Known Member
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? -
Those who believe in limited inerrancy have a higher view of scripture than Martin Luther did:
While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there:
-
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. -
Scripture More Accurately Well-Known Member
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. -
So far, no one has made any real effort to actually address the apparent contradictions presented here:
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:
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
Limited Inerrancy is from the devil himself. Regardless of who believes in this doctrine of demons
-
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. -
-
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.
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. -
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
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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
Page 1 of 3