Featured Inspiration/Infallibility/Inerrancy: To Be or Not To Be?

In light of another thread that I started, on Andy Stanley's misuse of the Holy Bible, and certain comments that he has made, that are clearly heretical. I am asking here as very simple question:

Is it absolutely necessary that all truly born-again Christians, believe in the total Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Holy Bible, Or, can they hold the one without the other(s), or, even partial?

 

Yes, very good points indeed. There is an interesting variant reading, which I believe to be the original, based on the textual evidence in 1 John 4:3. Instead of "ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ" (that does not confess), it read, "ὃ λύει" (that separated) Jesus. Which is one of the main purposes of this Epistle of John, against the Gnostic's like Cerinthus, who taught that Jesus was born a mere man, upon Whom the "divine nature" descended at His baptism, and left at the crucifixion. Jesus IS the Christ, two "natures", one "Person". A mystery that no human mind can ever fathom!

 

Textual evidence is more than Greek versions. I see that "ὃ λύει", was know to, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Greek manuscripts according to Church historian Socrates. These Church fathers are very early, though some also knew of "ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ", which shows a very early corruption. Like both Tertullian and Cyprian knowing of 1 John 5:7, as part of their First Epistle of John. Like 1 Timothy 3:16, important texts for the Trinity and Deity of Jesus have been tampered with. Interesting that the earliest Greek Mss for the Woman in adultery in John's Gospel, is from the 6th century. Yet Jerome, writing over 100 years earlier says, that the words are "found in many Greek and Latin manuscripts" of his time! These did not make it when the library was burnt were many manuscripts were kept.

 

Yes, and the great tragedy is, that they have a huge following who hang on to their every word! May the Lord grant mercy!

 

Thanks for your input. I have reservations about the Nicene Creed, and its subordinationism of Jesus Christ to God the Father. As for Job, there is no valid Scriptural reason not to believe that he was a literal person. I don't think that we should detract from what the Bible plainly teaches.

 

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his book, What is an Evangelical, discussed "Essentials" and "Secondary" Truths: After the Great Doctrine of God.

"Essential Truths

So what are the essential doctrines for evangelicals that distinguish them from other Christians or professors of faith?

1. “The first is the doctrine of Scripture” (340). The Bible is our supreme and sole authority, God’s completely trustworthy self-revelation. The evangelical believes in propositional truth, the miracles of the Bible, the history as well as the didactic teaching. The Bible is not just true in its “religious” parts. It is without error in all that it affirms. This means that the evangelical believes in the historicity of Adam and Eve. Further, “we reject any notion of a pre-Adamic man because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture” (343). The first chapters of Genesis must be accepted as history and cannot be undermined based on evolutionary theories.

2. We believe in the existence of the devil and evil spirits.

3. Man is spiritually dead and totally incapable, on his own, of any spiritual good.

4. The evangelical believes in the atonement, with a special emphasis on its penal, subsitutionary nature.

5. “We must also assert in a very special way justification by faith alone, faith only. We have to go on to assert that justification is not the result of regeneration, nor does it depend upon regeneration” (349).

6. No evangelical “can possibly believe in a state or territorial church” (349).

7. We believe in the importance of doctrine and church discipline.

8. We reject every notion of apostolic succession.

9. We believe in the sacraments, but reject every suggestion of sacerdotalism (the notion that there is inherent efficacy in the sacramental act itself).

Secondary Truths

Non-essential doctrines “are very important, and they must be discussed by evangelical people, but we must discuss them as brethren…we call them non-essential because they are not essential to salvation” (351). These doctrines are not as clearly taught as essential doctrines. Thus, sincere Christians sometimes come to different convictions in these areas. We must note that “difference between a defective understanding and a positive denial of truth by able people” (352).

So what are some of the doctrines Lloyd-Jones marks as non-essential?

1. “One is the belief in election and predestination” (352). Pelagianism is to be condemned, but not evangelical Arminianism. Though Lloyd-Jones was a convinced Calvinist, he put the issue in the category of a non-essential because Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the mechanism of salvation, not the way of salvation.

2. The age and mode of baptism. You cannot prove one or the other from the Scriptures.

3. “In the same way, we must not divide on the question of assurance of salvation” (353).

4. “We must not divide on the issue of church polity” (353).

5. “In the same way, clearly, we must not divide on the question of prophetic interpretation: pre-, post-, a-millennialist, and so on” (353).

6. Our differing views of sanctification are not essential.

7. Ditto for “the whole question of the baptism of the Spirit and the charismata, the spiritual gifts” (354).

Our object in all this is to safeguard the gospel, to keep the evangel clear. This is our motive for defining “evangelical.” By the same token, we should realize that none of us will be perfect in our understanding. We are all saved in spite of ourselves.