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!

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

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Matt Black, Dec 3, 2004.

  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Surely faith for salvation should be in Jesus, not in a book, no matter how inspired that book is? :eek: (I know mine is!). I know the Bible says it is inspired by God; inerrancy does not automatically follow. A charismatic will claim that his prophecy is inspired by God - doesn't make it inerrant. If you don't believe in the charismata being for today, then what about Paul of Eugene's example above - many preachers are (hopefully) inspired by God, that doesn't mean their sermons are infallible.

    I ask again: where in the Bible does it say that Scripture is inerrant .

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wrong. Any man can claim for himself that he is inspired. However, that does not elevate whatever it is that you are illustrating to the level of The Holy Bible.

    You keep insisting on the word inerrant. The Holy Bible does not use that particular word, as you know. Christ said that The Holy Bible is truth. We know it is very pure. The law is perfect. We know that The Holy Bible is God-inspired. We put all the facts together that we know about The Holy Bible and we can logically conclude that there is no error. Furthermore, no one has ever been able to show any error in The Holy Bible.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, there's the rub. Many have attempted to show a trivial error and the error has been attempted to be explained. In many cases, the two sides remain unconvinced that the other has accomplished what they say they accomplished.

    Just by way of making the statement concrete, consider the words of Paul in First Corinthians:

    1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
    15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

    Now I have it on excellent authority that Paul also had baptized Stephanus among them. In asserting that truth, am I therefore citing a minor error of fact in Paul's writings?

    At first glance, it would seem so.

    Explanations abound. Statements are made. What strikes me is that regardless of the fact that defences of the inerrancy can be mounted for this verse, they seem to have a quality of - shall we say - reaching?

    Manfestedly, the quality of reach in an argument, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.

    And thats how it stands. The ability of the human mind to rationalize recognizes no bounds (else how could anybody refuse to be a Baptist). This means that the question of inerrancy is fundamentally unproveable one way or another. We are left with our assessments according to what wisdom we have and share and accept from others.
     
  4. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    You keep referring back to the passage in John where Jesus equates Word with Truth. You do understand that in the context of John's gospel the "Word" is Jesus himself and not a set of writings (i.e. THE HOLY BIBLE). FYI

    Grace and Peace, Danny
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    How I get from inspired to inerrant is what I posted before:

    I guess the authority I use to say the Bible is inerrant is an omniscient, infallible God. If it's His word, it is inerrant (outside copyist and translator errors which we can easily discern).

    Why do you say the Bible was written by "faith communities?" Neither the nation of Israel nor did the early churches write the Bible; selected prophets and apostles of God did.
     
  6. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, I know all this. We covered this in Bibliology -- the authorship of 2 Peter also kept it questionable for awhile.

    I'd have to dig into my notes and the textbook to respond to the Didache -- some early church fathers quoted from it as though it was scripture and others did not hold it as scripture. But I am not losing sleep over it.

    I believe that a God powerful enough to create the universe ex nihilo and to know every hair on every head of every person that ever lived is able to see that His word is not mixed in with false books, and that none of His word is left out. Call is simple faith. Additionally, I was saved while reading the Bible.

    Don't have the time to do a thread on the canon -- it's just too much. I spend too much time on the BB as it is. I need to get more selective.
     
  7. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Paul is addressing those who are arguing about who they are following. Paul seems to be saying that he is glad he did not baptize any of these people (except Crispus and Gaius) who are causing division by having pet teachers who baptized them. He did baptize Stephanus, but it seems Stephanus is not part of this group of people who are arguing over their pet teachers since Stephanus is referred to in the 3rd person and we can conclude he is not part of this group who are arguing. Or it could be that Stephanus is added in with Crispus and Gaius, for some reason, as an aside (maybe because he is not part of the division). I don't see an error here.
     
  8. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know who Jesus is? How do you know that your information about him is correct? You say that you know, but how do you know?

    Does errancy automatically follow? Surely, either errancy or inerrancy would logically follow from the fact of inspiration? Which seems most logical to you?

    What about the claim of inspiration itself? How do you know if something is inspired or not? Is a claim alone sufficient to establish inspiration? Are sermons preached today inspired by God in the same sense that the scriptures are inspired?

    I know of no place in scripture in which the scriptures make a direct claim to inerrancy, yet I still hold to inerrancy. Inerrancy is a doctrine that is a logical corollary to the doctrine of inspiration. In reading other statements that you have made regarding inspiration, specifically, this one:
    I think that I have a basic disagreement with you regarding THAT doctrine. Your incorrect description of inspiration reflected in the cited statement is the source of your rejection of inerrancy. No charismatic who speaks today and no preacher preaching today is inspired in the sense that the scriptures are. The inspiration of scripture is unique and is not taking place today. OF COURSE, charismatics and modern preachers make mistakes. OF COURSE, they are not infallible nor inerrant. UNLIKE THE BIBLE, they are NOT inspired. It is the process of inspiration that insures the inerrancy of scripture. You can't have one without the other.
     
  9. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    It does not say that it is. Some have concluded that is based on deductive logic:

    • The Bible was inspired by God.

    • God does not lie.

    • Therefore the Bible Is true

    • Therefore it can not include any errors.

    Of course the problems with this logic are numerous. For example:

    • The correct translation of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is not certain.

    16, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    17. so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASB)

    16. Every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    17. so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (NASB margin [alternate rendering])

    16. Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    17. so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

    Which writings does Paul refer to here? Is he referring here to the deuterocanonical books as well as the canonical books? Is he referring to any entire book or only to the parts of those books which are inspired? Is he referring to anything that he himself has already written or will write in the future? Was he referring to 2 Tim. 3:16-17? Even if he personally believed that he was inspired when he wrote 2 Tim. 3:16-17, how do we know that he really was?

    • The concept of “truth” is a philosophical concept that means different things to different people.

    Is an accidental error an untruth? Is a sincere but incorrect statement based upon erroneous data an untruth? Is truthfulness synonymous honesty? Is it possible to make an honest mistake?

    • We may not today the true canon

    Are 2 Peter, James, and Revelation truly canonical books? If they are not, and Paul was not referring to them, what reason do we have to believe that they are free from error or even entirely true? Is the Apocalypse According to Peter a canonical book that was wrongly left out of our canon? If it is a canonical book, does it accurately describe the punishment by God for sin?

    • If the Bible does in fact include some errors, and we say, based on this logic, that God is a liar if there are errors in the Bible, are we not committing blaspheme?

    If there are errors in the Bible, is it possible that God has given man both the intelligence and the discernment to recognize those errors if we will be honest with ourselves and with God? Should we be open to the possibility that there are errors in the Bible and study the Bible from that perspective? Should we know God only through Bible, or should we also know God through a personal relationship with Him? What does it really mean to have a personal relationship with God?

    [​IMG]
     
  10. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You keep referring back to the passage in John where Jesus equates Word with Truth. You do understand that in the context of John's gospel the "Word" is Jesus himself and not a set of writings (i.e. THE HOLY BIBLE). FYI

    Grace and Peace, Danny
    </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do understand that there are layers of meaning. However, I disagree with you that in this instance Jesus was not talking about The Holy Bible.
     
  11. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The religious left idea that one should just dote on Jesus no matter how many errors may be in The Holy Bible strikes me as so illogical as to be a worthless idea. How can I believe in a Jesus as God if His Word is full of errors? Talk about blind faith--that would be it. I believe that Jesus is God because he rose from the dead. If Jesus has a high view of The Holy Bible, I cannot afford a lesser view than Jesus holds.

    If The Holy Bible is illogical and error ridden, then there is no Salvation for sin and we are all headed for death and hell. The Good News is that The Holy Bible is true!
     
  12. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The late Dr. Walter Martin in his little handbook of basic Christian doctrines Essential Christianity quotes the Anglican scholar Bishop E. H. Bickersteth:

    The words of the great scholar Bishop E. H. Bickersteth sum up the ancient and defensible position of historic Christianity concerning the Bible. We would do well to listen prayerfully to his wisdom and believe in the truth he champions so well:

    In its sacred characters God speaks, and man speaks. Who can lay bare the mystery? Who can dissect the mingled shadings of the colours of the rainbow? But this inspiration of Scripture, though perfectly consistent with the individuality of the several writers, is altogether inconsistent with those rationalistic theories which subvert the faith of some in the present day. It absolutely refuses to allow the existence of anything false, or fallible, or merely human in the Scriptures as first given by God to man. Then should we need yet another revelation to assure us what was inspired and what uninspired, what was fallible and what infallible, what was human and what Divine. Further, it positively resists the theory of human reason, or any verifying faculty in man, being the ultimate judge of God’s revelation. "For the prerogative of God," says Bacon, "extendeth as well to the reason as to the will of man; so that, we are to obey His law, though we find a reluctation in our will. So are we to believe His words, though we find a reluctation in our reason. For if we believe only what is agreeable to our sense, we give consent in the matter, not to the Author, which is no more than we do to a suspected and discredited witness. Nor ought we to draw down or submit the mysteries of God to our reason, but, contrariwise, to raise and advance our reason to the Divine truth.

    The obedience of faith does not in the very least interfere with the useful and important duty of critical investigation. Though, in better words than my own, "Let us always be cautious that we do not extend criticism beyond its limits. To investigate the merits of copies and versions, to lead us up by a careful process of inquiry to the very text, as near as may be, as it was penned by the various authors, to illustrate what they have said, and to facilitate the understanding of their words - this is the object, this the ample field of sacred criticism. But an awful responsibility is incurred if we elevate it into the judge of prophets and apostles, to censure them for what they have said, and to pronounce what they should have said; to declare their reasoning inconclusive, and their statements inaccurate; to regard them as led astray with false philosophy, and bewildered for want of recollection; to thrust them, in fact, far below a shrewd professor in a German university, who could have taught the world more skillfully than they did - from this the devout mind should intuitively shrink. We are commanded indeed to prove all things; we are encouraged by the book itself to search whether the things it tells us be so. But surely the authenticity and general truthfulness of the record being established, its own testimony is sufficient to indicate its highest claims."

    These claims -to sum up what I have said before - are nothing less than the plenary inspiration of Scripture, from Genesis to Malachi, from Matthew to Revelation. Every jot and tittle of the Bible, as originally penned by the sacred writers, is God’s WORD WRITTEN - I repeat, as originally penned, for the truth here affirmed does not ask us to believe in the inspiration of copyists or translators or interpreters. Superficial errors, though we believe them to be few and comparatively unimportant, may have crept in during the lapse of ages. But the autographs were perfect. They may record the ungodly sayings and sentiments of ungodly men, but those sayings are historically true, and it was the mind of the Spirit thus to record them. They may embody earlier uninspired documents; but, if it be so, the fact of the Holy Ghost moving the sacred writers to embody them proves that every word is true, and stamps every sentence thus taken into the canon of Scripture with the seal of God. They do in their various parts bear the unmistakable impress of the individual character of every author (for inspiration is not of necessity dictation), but each one spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. So the one inspiring breath of the pipe organ gives forth the sound, which the conformation of every pipe impresses on it. It is God speaking to man in man’s language. And as the Incarnate Word was subject to the innocent infirmities of humanity, though absolutely and perfectly without sin, so the written Word is the mind of God, couched in the feeble symbolism of human speech, but yet is pure, perfect, and infallible. This glorious possession - this choicest heirloom of the family of man - we owe to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
     
  13. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    CMG and Swaimj, I take your point re the Incarnation - the main way we know Jesus is through Scripture, which should therefore be reliable and trustworthy. BUT - guys and Marcia - note my use of phraseology in that last sentence; it does not follow that it need be 100% inerrant/ accurate.

    Let me illustrate by a couple of examples: when I was about 4, my dad explained the facts of life to me. He did this by essentially saying "the father's seed and the mother's egg come together to make a baby". I spent the next few years believing that an actual plant-type seed and hen-type egg made a baby. Similarly, my grandmother used to ask me to "watch the sun go down" with her in the evening; it was onyl when I was older that I realised that the sun did not really go down, but the earth rotated on its axis around the sun. Now, did those statements make my dad and my grandma liars, untrustworthy, unreliable, untruthful? Surely not! But the statements were not accurate. In the same way, the Bible can contain factual inaccuracies and contradictions and therefore be errant, and yet still trustworthy, truthful, inspired and reliable. So, for me, it really doesn't make any difference whether people like Jonah or Job really existed for their books to be 'truthful' (in the sense of 'full of truth'), anymore than it matters whether or not the people and events in Jesus' parables really existed and happened.

    Marcia, you asked about 'faith communities' writing Scripture. Most scholars consider eg: Genesis to be the product of a large body of Hebrew oral tradition that eventually coalesced and was written down, and that's probably true of Job too. Who do you say wrote Job?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Matt, you are a religious liberal or a religious leftist. The hallmark of religious liberalism is that it does not believe that The Holy Bible is perfect.

    I have cited for you your own countryman Bishop E. H. Bickersteth, who has given a scholarly explanation of the situtation. You, sadly, have followed after the German professors, the higher critics, and said that The Holy Bible is unreliable. In which case, if you were correct, there would be no payment for sin, no Salvation, and no future except eternal Hell. Your religion is as worthless as that of the ancient Romans and their Jove.
     
  15. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I have not said that the Bible is unreliable - far from it. Please re-read my last post. I'm not a liberal/leftist - I'm quite happy to sign up to the Evangelical Alliance's Statement of Faith
    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  16. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK, but then your thread seems pointless because you say that you suscribe to this tenet of the Evangelical Alliance's Statement of Faith:

    "The divine inspiration of the Holy Scripture and its consequent entire trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct."

    It seems to those of us who have posted that entire trustworthiness is the same as inerrant and supreme authority is Scripture only.

    Inerrant means free from error (we are not counting errors in copying over the centuries) or what you call entire trustworthiness. I think that the word inerrant is stronger than the Evangelical Alliance's statement. It might be more fun to ask your fellow members why they believe that The Holy Bible is entirely trustworthy.
     
  17. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    These statements are the thinking and ideas of the religious left and the German professors:

    "So, for me, it really doesn't make any difference whether people like Jonah or Job really existed for their books to be 'truthful' (in the sense of 'full of truth'), anymore than it matters whether or not the people and events in Jesus' parables really existed and happened.

    Marcia, you asked about 'faith communities' writing Scripture. Most scholars consider eg: Genesis to be the product of a large body of Hebrew oral tradition that eventually coalesced and was written down, and that's probably true of Job too. Who do you say wrote Job?"

    Matt, you have a foot in two camps.
     
  18. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I expect the reason is the same as mine, and that's why the EA has been careful in its wording. I have given examples of why 'entire trustworthiness' does not necessarily equate to 'inerrancy'

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  19. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt, thanks for your post. I think I probably don't disagree with you on this topic, but I think the way you state it is, uhm...errant.

    Actually, your father's description of the egg and the seed IS scientifically accurate. But you, because of your youth and the limits of your vocabulary misunderstood it at the time. As for the sunrise, there is an objective sense in which the sun does NOT rise, but there is a subjective sense in which it DOES rise. Humans will ALWAYS popularly refer to it in the subjective sense because of our perpective. While the word "sunrise" is not technically correct, it is an accurate description and a pithy summary of what we see and is thus NOT inaccurate.

    Based on your illustrations, it seems that you view the Bible as "errant" because it uses literary devices. Literary devices are not the issue in inerrancy. Liberals who question inerrancy are not attacking the Bible because it uses literary devices. The most conservative scholars recognize literary devices and do not take them in the most literal sense. For instance, when the scriptures speak of the "arm of the Lord" or "the hand of God", we know that God is spirit and not physical. He does not have physical hands and arms. We accept the statements non-literally, but as anthropomorphisms. Doing this is not an attack on inerrancy and it is not an "admission" that there are "mistakes" in the Bible.

    I think it is unwise for you to identify with liberals on the issue of inerrancy when sound conservatives recognize the issues you raise and address them effectively. When you say that you believe in Jesus and then attack the sole source of your information about Jesus as being "errant", you are shooting your own self in the foot and you run the risk of weakening the faith of younger believers.
     
  20. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "The School of Higher Textual Criticism"--

    Has done it to us again--planted seeds of doubt and confusion.

    This is a tactic of Satan. Confusion, doubt and diversion are his basic tools.

    "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." should be sufficient for the concept of inerrancy. Also"...not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

    We still have a problem with Holy and Omniscient.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
Loading...