Featured Inerrancy

I am somewhere between Full and Absolute inerrancy.

God wasn't being poetic when He revealed Creation Week to Moses.

 

Even in the very first chapter of the Bible there are an uncountable number of (mutually incompatible) interpretations going back thousands of years by believers who accepted the FULL AUTHORITY of Scripture.

Believers, even believers on the BaptistBoard (yeah, I know that’s hard to believe) can have opposing views about what Scripture communicates.

Conclusion:
(1) the Bible is inerrant because it originates with God.
(2) different interpretations/views do not change the inerrancy of Scripture.

Why are there different interpretations? Thousands of reasons! But we all bring different views and ideas to Scripture when we study it.

So to tame the diversity we set some rules (limits) about what we observe about Scripture.

There can no longer be any simple definition of inerrancy. It has been nuanced in all recent Systematic Theology texts - as even Errickson’s text has shown in the opening post.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has almost 20 affirmations/denials to clarify (put limits upon) the application of inerrancy.

Rob

 

Does that apply to the Resurrection of Christ? No? Then that doesn't apply to Genesis.

 

True but denied by KJVO folks

 

From Michael Horton's Systematic Theology, Pilgrim Theology

How would you classify the following statement under the topic of the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture:

Absolute, Full, or Limited Inerrancy?

There are a few important points to mention on this topic.
First, inerrancy pertains to the original autographs. We do not say that our translations of the original texts (or even that the original-language copies available to us) are inspired and inerrant. In fact, they do contain errors of various kinds. However, the immense number of ancient copies allows textual scholars to determine the original reading with near certainty.

Second, inerrancy does not cancel human agency in the least; in other words, it does not entail a mechanical theory of dictation.

Third, inerrancy does not mean that the human authors were omniscient or perfect in their understanding. Indeed, they openly exhibit their finitude and fallibility. The biblical writers assumed a cosmology that is quite different from our own, but it is not their cultural assumptions but their affirmations that we receive as God’s word. In fact, there are many examples of prophets and apostles acknowledging their own errors of judgment and practice. ...

...Fourth, inerrancy does not mean that the human authors were exhaustive or exact.

Michael Horton, Pilgrim Theology: Core Doctrines for Christian Disciples (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 58.
​

Rob

 

So you would hold that the writers of the scriptures were led to record down some mistakes and errors in some areas, or else they were allowed to accommodate views of their time, such as Jesus was not really casting out demons, as people did not know had mental illnesses instead?

 

And this blasts wide open the door to those who wish to rewrite paul as being Homophobe, or he misunderstood women leadership issues!

 

Absolute Inerrancy for Originals, and full infallibility for valid translations