Inerrancy: Tuesday’s Questions

20 Responses to Inerrancy: Tuesday’s Questions

1. Price says:

   September 13, 2011 at 6:42 am

   II Peter 3:16 seems to provide some clues as to how we view scripture…

   1. Some things are just plain difficult to understand and “unlearned, ignorant” people can misapply it’s teaching.

   2. If one doesn’t properly interpret scripture, then they do it to their own demise which indicates Peter’s view of scripture as a guide.

   3. Peter refers to Paul’s writing as scripture that is equal to that of the O.T. scripture.

   It seems to me that the scripture is reliable in what in wishes to communicate. The challenges lie in discerning the truth that is contained in them versus trying to apply principals which the passage never meant to imply or create.

   Also, if something is difficult to understand it seems only reasonable that there will be a “learning” process.. I don’t see any instruction to disassociate with those that aren’t quite “up to speed” with their understanding.. At what point in time do we each decide there is nothing more to learn because we are incapable of any mistake in our application of scripture? To me it’s like going to school..In the first grade you learn first grade material.. It would be illogical to expel a first grade student for not being able to do 12 grade math.. I think God grants us tremendous leeway in our growth from milk to meat and therefore we should follow His example with one another…Humility is the word that pops into my head.
2. Alan says:

   September 13, 2011 at 7:41 am

   Price nailed it.
3. Jerry Starling says:

   September 13, 2011 at 8:06 am

   Paul also quoted from the gospel of Luke and called it Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 (cf. Luke 10:5).

   In John 10:34-35, we see an appeal by Jesus to Scripture:

   Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came – and the Scripture cannot be broken….”

   This certainly points to a very high view of Scripture.

   The Scriptures are reliable for the purposes for which they are given. We do not find in them, for example, a detailed geography of the New World. Yet, the New World is included in the scope of the Great Commission.

   I see little good (and potential harm) in claiming more for Scripture than it claims for itself.

   Jerry
4. Alan says:

   September 13, 2011 at 8:46 am

   Jesus expects us to know the scriptures:

   Mat 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”

   Mar 12:10-11 Haven’t you read this scripture:
   ” ‘The stone the builders rejected
   has become the capstone;
   The Lord has done this,
   and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

   Jesus accepted the OT as factual:

   Abel (Luke 11:51)
   Noah (Matt 24:37-39)
   Abraham (John 8:56-58)
   Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:29, Matt 10:15)
   Lot (Luke 17:28-32)
   Manna (John 6:31, 49)
   Moses, snake in desert (John 13:14)
   Jonah (Matt 12:39-41)
   Queen of Sheba (Matt 12:42)
   Isaiah (Matt 13:14, Matt 15:7)
   Daniel (Matt 24:15)

   Jesus confirmed Moses, Isaiah, Jonah, Daniel as the authors of their respective books.

   Jesus asserted that God was the one speaking in scripture:

   Mat 22:31-32 But about the resurrection of the dead–have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

   Mat 22:43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’?

   Jesus expects us to believe and to obey what is written in scripture:

   Luk 16:31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

   Jesus taught that what is written in scripture must be fulfilled:

   Mat 26:53-54 “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

   Jesus used the scriptures to correct others, basing his argument on a single word choice (“Lord”) (Matt 22:41-46)

   Jesus said the teaching of the apostles was equal in stature to his own teaching:

   Luk 10:16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

   There is more but that’s what I have time for right now…

   It’s important to note that every reference to scripture by Jesus asserts its authority and reliability. To Jesus, the scriptures were the last word on any question they address.
5. Alabama John says:

   September 13, 2011 at 8:57 am

   Price,

   That explains why so many of ya’ll don’t understand what I am really saying.
   They just haven’t caught up to me yet in my humble opinion..
6. ao says:

   September 13, 2011 at 1:13 pm

   Price,

   I like it!

   Alan,

   I really like the scriptures you put on the table and for the most part I also like the way you prefaced them. I would only want to clarify some very small things:

   I agree with you that Jesus thought the “OT was factual”, as long as by “factual” you mean “true” (and the Bible does use the word “true” to describe the Bible). The OT has many different types of literature within it, and all genres are capable of teaching “truth” or “fact,” whether they are historical or poetic.

   Also, for Jesus to use Moses, Isaiah, and Daniel as authors of books doesn’t mean that each of them wrote *everything* in the books that are attributed to them. Solid, conservative scholarship shows that that’s not how authorship attribution worked back in those days.

   The only reason I’m bringing this up is because there are some Christians who adopt a view of inerrancy that Moses *must have* written all of the Torah, because Jesus said so. Isaiah *must have* written all of Isaiah, and Daniel *must have* written all of Daniel. Then, when they’re shown compelling evidence that these authors did not write *all* of their books, they feel like the Bible is lying to them, and they have a(n unnecessary) crisis of faith.

   But, I definitely like your points about the Bible considers the Bible authoritative, reliable, and able to correct, along with Price’s point that the Bible understands that the Bible is also sometimes difficult to understand, and it takes work, and patience to understand it.
7. Alan says:

   September 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm

   ao, I’m in complete agreement with your comments.
8. CyclingDude says:

   September 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm

   Price (and everyone else as well),

   Great thoughts, I do question your conclusion on #2 some. I think Peter is implying motive as the cause of demise versus a mistake in interpretation. “…which the ignorant and unstable twist…”

   Then again, I may be interpretating incorrectly…I hope I’m not unstable, but ignorant…that’s another story.

   I’m picking at words…it was a great post.
9. abasnar says:

   September 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm

   What other passages are relevant to the meaning and use of the Scriptures other than the passages cited in the main text?

   In general I hold to the conviction that scripture explains scripture, which means: Read and know the whole book when looking at one verse. That’s why my sermons are sooooooooooo long …

   Second to this: Look at how the early church that was closest to the Apostles read and understood that text. They are most likely the best commentary available for us.

   Third: Since so many historical half truths are scattered throughout various commentaries, you might want to really dig into ancient history … but REALLY dig into it.

   In the end: If you do you homework you will end up with what the text verbally said. So: just take everything literally and seriously (within the context of the whole Bible) and you won’t miss the point. Even lesser educated people are capable of that.

   Do you believe the Scriptures are reliable?

   Maybe too broad a question. Reliable for what? As soon as we start to narrow down the applicabilty of the scriptures to certain areas of life, we might end up with statements as:

   “The scriptures are reliable fort he salvation of my soul, but not for understanding the origin of the universe.”

   or:

   “The scriptures are reliable spiritually, but for how I lead my business.”

   You get the point? I am convinced that the scriptures are reliable for all areas of life, spritually, scientifically, emotionally, monetary, … you name it. God has wisdom for everything.

   All that we exclude from the reliabilty of scripture we exclude from sanctification. This means: God has nothing to say about this area then.

   Do you believe the scriptures are inerrant? If so, state how you define “inerrant” for this purpose.

   Therefore, YES, I believe the scriptures are inerrant. Look back the last two paragraphs for a definition, or let me sum it up as plainly as possible:

   When God in the Bible says such and such is white, I don’t care if the whole world believes such and such is black. There is a deceiver around, confusing and misleading people – and even God may send some delusions for those who don’t want to hear the truth.

   I am interested in the truth and therefore I accept each and every verse of the Bible at face value.

   Alexander
10. Price says:

    September 13, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Cycling Dude…. I went back and check out the II Peter 3:16 verse on blue letter bible.com …. interesting greek.. Some translation use “ignorant”…the greek suggests “unlearned”…perhaps the same but not necessarily… one could just be “under-taught”….

    Also, the greek word that is translated as “distort” or whatever has an association with being tortured in a rack…twisted and pulled…

    Seems to me that intent could certainly be the case but also it appears that someone who wished to use a wrong hermeneutic to make a point that the scripture didn’t wish to make might be equally as incorrect…

    Just a thought…

    Alexander… I would imagine that your musical talent is real and enjoyable… I wonder when you played those songs and were in a mind of praising God if He might have been pleased to see you using your talent in praise… My guess is that it is very likely that He was very pleased… I can’t imagine that He would be greatly displeased if you did the very same thing in a group of people that were listening and singing along or just listening to your song of praise… If that is true…then would God really be displeased because you were in a building with the name church outside rather than in another building that didn’t have that same sign ?? Isn’t the “church”…well, us ? Or is the building today just a temple franchise on every corner ?
11. JMF says:

    September 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Alexander/abasnar:

    I really like your approach to Scripture. While I think one could take a more modern approach and see some things as conditional to the time period (foot washing, kisses, head coverings) and have their worship accepted by God, I do think your approach is very humble and respectable.
12. CyclingDude says:

    September 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Price,

    Thanks for the education; I guess I could (should) have done a little work on my end as well. I would think that someone who (willingly) wished to use a wrong hermeneutic to make a point would fall under motive. But, looking back I think I read your post incorrectly and I didn’t communicate very well on my end. When I brought up motive I meant to imply deception or corrupt, something besides right motive, mistaken interpretation based on the authors original intent. Based on your second post I’m thinking that’s what you may have meant all along. Anyway, appreciate the extra detail and I’ll work on doing a better job reading before responding.
13. Keith Brenton says:

    September 13, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    What other passages are relevant to the meaning and use of the Scriptures other than the passages cited in the main text?
    I’m a little surprised — unless I’ve missed it — that no one has brought up Revelation 22, especially verses 7 through 19.

    Whether you extend their scope beyond the scroll bearing the prophecy and vision given to John on Patmos, there are important principles at play there.

    One of which, obviously, is “Don’t play with the words.”

    Another is that there are times that some things should be sealed up and other times they should be shared.

    Do you believe the Scriptures are reliable?
    Because of the citations that you, Jay, and others have shared — and several more pertaining to the word of God in the context of written scripture — I believe the Scriptures to be what they claim to be: God-breathed, reliable, profitable, useful, sufficient, sharper than a sword, soul-piercing, convicting, superior to tradition, authoritative, unbreakable, spreadable and flourishing, free to all, alive and active.

    I also believe Scriptures are pure, true, flawless (however you wish to render the term used in Proverbs 30:5), another passage about the word of God that I have not seen cited in the essay or comments so far.

    Do you believe the scriptures are inerrant? If so, state how you define “inerrant” for this purpose.
    Yes. See the answer immediately above this one for my definition. Sorry if that doesn’t agree with anyone else’s, but it works for me.
14. Jay Guin says:

    September 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Keith,

    (Pro 30:5 ESV) Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

    “True” here is literally “refined” — as gold or silver might be refined in a fire.
15. Keith Brenton says:

    September 13, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Pure, true, flawless, refined … they all work for me. 🙂
16. HistoryGuy says:

    September 14, 2011 at 1:18 am

    What other passages are relevant…
    I will not add to the numerous and wonderful passages listed because the core issue continues. The problem is not the verses being put forth, but rather what those verses (or even themes) mean. When we agree “all scripture is inspired,” we still do not have an infallible list of what scripture is, therefore, one debate centers on the question, ‘does the canon contain scripture or is every word in the canon scripture?’ A second debate may be, ‘when dealing with error, should one focus on themes or individual verses (Justin Martyr), or the literal or spiritual meaning (Origen)? They represent many ECF and both affirmed ‘without contradiction,’ but did so differently.

    Hence, the contrasts I made between Matt. 4:4; Romans 16:22; Gal. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17, etc. I treat the issue like the Trinity controversy; Christians were arguing ‘over scripture’ about interpretations, but specific ‘correct’ Christian views, proven by apostolic succession, were also codified in creeds to settle the disputes of interpretation and prevent corruption of Christianity (and scripture). The NT was seen first as scripture, and it was then canonized amidst controversy with other writings. Early creeds affirmed the correct views of scripture, including inerrancy, to expose heretics.

    Are scriptures are reliable?
    Absolutely!

    Are scriptures inerrant? If so, state how you define “inerrant” for this purpose.
    Yes, but using the ECF method, which is similar to, but more simplified than the Chicago statement.

    Many views of modern inerrancy fly in the face of the early church, and are the result of a 19th century debate, which in my view, could have been fought not by a ‘new’ view of inerrancy, but by appealing to the creeds that early church used to protect itself and scripture. I prefer to describe scripture as did the patristics, who preserved and died for the scriptures.

    Scripture is inerrant when viewed ‘topically or thematically,’ not by word/grammar/genre/verse, of the narrative/epistle/writing/oral teaching/etc. Scripture is contained in the epistle or narrative, etc., but ‘Paul’s large letters,’ ‘scribe,’ and genre are not the actual scriptures that Jesus speaks of in Matt. 4:4. I phrase it this way, only because people today use the ECF definition of scripture (i.e. the whole letter Galatians is scripture), but do not use the ECF definitions of ‘no contradictions.’ I can say Galatians is inerrant scripture, but I will mean something different than others. The ECF have 3 accumulative positions that make up the ‘ECF inerrant view of scripture,’ and anyone not holding to it was labeled a heretic, without assurance of the church/scripture, and would be judged (lost or saved) by God.

    (1) Scripture is specific REVELATION of God alongside prophets, apostles, Christ, angels, or theophany, and is otherwise unknowable without God revealing it.

    (2) It is divine and the highest AUTHORITY. Christians were to only receive the oral and written teaching handed down from the apostles (NOTE: don’t confuse the use of oral/written teaching in the 1st 3 centuries with that of Catholic use in latter centuries – they are different). Creeds were authoritative, but defended orthodoxy and never trumped scripture.

    (3) INSPIRATION makes scripture perfect, but according to ECF, perfect means scripture contains nothing false or CONTRADICTORY, and is either applied thematically (the total message), not verse by verse (Justin Martyr), or applied spiritually, not always literally (Origen). When single verses seem to contradict other verses, or literal meanings seem impossible or irrational, the reader has ignored the theme or true message and created a problem; the problem is not scripture.

    Christians using allegory and liter-historical interpretations both distinguished between Old and New Covenant and the worship, viewed Christ as the key to all interpretation, and found consensus about these 3 issues of scripture, which supported their view of inerrancy.

    My attempt to summarize has probably failed miserably. If so, I use the example that the Nicene Creed expresses the correct Christian view of God and salvation, and also identifies ‘a few examples’ of what inerrant scripture looks like (i.e. inerrant scripture prophesied that Jesus would die and raise). The creed seeks to defend God and scripture while assuming a specific non-contradictory view of scripture. If one rejected or still rejects the Nicene Creed, then he is a heretic and outside the line of fellowship.

    peace, my friends.
17. CyclingDude says:

    September 14, 2011 at 2:16 am

    What other passages are relevant to the meaning and use of the Scriptures other than the passages cited in the main text?

    So many have been provided within the main text and related posts, I doubt I have anything significant to add.

    Do you believe the Scriptures are reliable? Yes

    Do you believe the scriptures are inerrant? If so, state how you define “inerrant” for this purpose

    After changing my answer 6 times today, I’ve concluded that yes, I believe the scriptures are inerrant. I really dislike the word and concept, but reading Keith’s response brought me to conclusion that any other answer would be misrepresentative of my beliefs regarding scripture. I define inerrancy as the belief that scripture contains the perfect, God-directed, error-free message and related meaning that God intended to communicate to mankind. I do not however, define error or inerrancy in the same context as 20th century rational thought so as to mistakenly presuppose that scientific theory applies to scripture no differently then natural law. In other words, I do not include factual mistakes within the scope of inerrancy. On the contrary, I contend that circumstances could exist, and likely does, where using correct facts, rather than quoting or referring to the mistaken factual beliefs of the recipient culture, would infer error since the use of such correct facts would impede the intended message. I may yet draw a distinction between God’s word and God’s inspiration (e.g. “God breathed”), but I’m still thinking that through. Especially since Jesus is referred to as the Logos (“Word”). I believe any factual mistakes are either purely related to man’s effort to transcribe and/or translate or they exist because God allowed them, and possibly even inspired the authors to include such mistakes in their composition, so that the completed literary work would provide the exact, relevant, intended message within the cultural context of the current time period and geographic location of the primary recipients. Inspired inclusion of such mistakes is not error, but brilliance, since the primary purpose of all literature (e.g. scripture) is to communicate meaning, not factual data. And in the case of mistakes made in transcription or translation, I content that God was completely aware of any such mistakes, and since there is no doubt that such mistakes exist, those mistakes are not relevant to the message and purpose of scripture since God took no action to intervene. As a result they also are not to be included in the scope of inerrancy.
18. laymond says:

    September 14, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Jay.
    (Pro 30:5 ESV) Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

    “True” here is literally “refined” — as gold or silver might be refined in a fire.

    Keith Brenton, on September 13th, 2011 at 10:44 pm Said:

    Pure, true, flawless, refined … they all work for me. 🙂

    Jay, and Keith– what you are saying is taking for granted that God either inspired or wrote every word in the bible.
    And for those who believe that this whole exercise is futile.
    And I believe the author digresses from the subject when he referred to the scripture that he did. I don’t believe Pro 30:5 was talking about the bible, and no! there is no one taking part in this discussion, who has challenged “God’s word” as anything but the truth.
19. abasnar says:

    September 15, 2011 at 12:12 am

    @ JMF

    Thank you for your kind words!

    While I think one could take a more modern approach and see some things as conditional to the time period (foot washing, kisses, head coverings) and have their worship accepted by God, …

    Acceptable worship BTW is something very different:

    Jas 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

    Religion here = thre?skeia = ceremonial observance: – religion, worshipping

    All the other things are “trimmings”, nonethless a church misses a lot by not having them, and a teacher should be very reluctant to skip over such things. None of these are salvation issues in themselves, but aspects of loving obedience towards Christ – which is a salvation issue. I hope you can grasp this important distinction. In other words: Obedience is a matter of growth in knowledge, understanding and love – none of us is completed yet, therefore we all fall short of complete and total obedience without being damned immediately. It’s our attitude that counts – and one can have a right attitude, but follow wrong conclusions. Se we need to be patient with one another as Christ is patient with us.

    BTW: On the 24th September our house-church is planning to have our annual footwashing again. We do it not in the Easter Week, but somewhere at the beginning of the school season, which actually is also the beginning of our church year (we plan from September to June, since July and August are too vacational). Footwashing is an act of commitment: We express to one another our willingness and commitment to serve one another this year both in matters of earthly and spiritual need. Not only speaking about it, but actually doing it in a symbolic manner as Christ did it, enhances the lesson … and it is an example that Christ’s commands are not so much to be discussed but to be done in simple and childlike obdience.

    Alexander
20. Alan S. says:

    September 19, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Justin Taylor has a blog (“Between Two Worlds”) in which he recently dealt with the subject of inerrancy by quoting from John Frames’ book “The Doctrine of the Word of God”). He has some good thoughts on the relationship between “precision” and “truth” and how that relates to the subject of inerrancy.

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/09/16/inerrancy-and-infallibility-truth-claims-and-precision/

Comments are closed.