How do we know the Bible is innerant?

[Daniel]

Without begging the question and leaning on the Bible to tell us that it is totally inerrant, and still maintaining a reformation stand on Sola Scriptura, how can we define and defend Biblical inerrancy? Do we try to go too far in doing so?
Daniel

[Curt Lovelace]

Well, we can try to find the word "inerrant," or we can simply take God's Word for it. I find it hard to accept that something God-breathed could be antyhing other than inerrant.

[Rey Reynoso]

I'm going to assume a bunch of stuff.

If we can't use the Bible, I'm not sure we can even prove inerrancy. I mean, even if we had historical proof for every single thing in the Bible, and even proof that God exists and that God is Truth we still can't prove that He translated that truth to humans. Evne if we prove that Christ and God are one and spoke to the Disciples, we can't prove that they had the Spirit within them helping them to remember. And even if can prove without a doubt that the Spirit reminded the disciples of the Words of Christ, we can't prove that Paul had a similar promise. Or the writer to Hebrews. Or Mark. Luke.

If we do use the Bible I think we can establish things like God being Truth, Jesus being as the God-Man and then establish his view of Scripture and His understanding of how the disciples would remember His words. Of course, this limits innerrancy to the Old Testament and anything written by a direct disciple of Jesus. We're still stuck with a uninspired Paul.

From here you would have writings that the original Disciples approved of but these we would assume wouldn't have a strong line on inerrancy. These would be teachings that the Disciples think are still in line with the divine teachings of Christ but are likely not as authoritative as his words. Unless the Disciples themselves mark out these other writings as being on par with Divine teaching.

If we go back in time though I think folk were very uncomfortable with anything written and their main concern was a message of Truth.

[Daniel]

Curt Lovelace said:

Well, we can try to find the word "inerrant," or we can simply take God's Word for it. I find it hard to accept that something God-breathed could be antyhing other than inerrant.

But how do we know that? Is it just because it says so? We wouldn't take that kind of logic from a Mormon or about the Koran, would we? That's my point. How do we get away from saying the Bible is trustworthy because the trustworthy Bible says it is trustworthy while still maintaining a doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Daniel
Daniel

[Curt Lovelace]

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Curt Lovelace said:

Well, we can try to find the word "inerrant," or we can simply take God's Word for it. I find it hard to accept that something God-breathed could be antyhing other than inerrant.

But how do we know that? Is it just because it says so? We wouldn't take that kind of logic from a Mormon or about the Koran, would we? That's my point. How do we get away from saying the Bible is trustworthy because the trustworthy Bible says it is trustworthy while still maintaining a doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Daniel
Daniel

Daniel,

I've always loved the way the Westminster Divines dealt with this; It's in chapter 1, paragraph V of the Westminster Confession of Faith and reads thusly:

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

[JL Vaughn]

Curt,

Adam was "God-breathed." So were the disciples in John 20:22. Did that make them inerrant?

Blessings.

[JL Vaughn]

No Robert,

No difference at all. Words on paper are likewise dead. We call them dusty old books.

Scripture has life. That is the Biblical doctrine of inspiration.

Blessings.

[Jack]

Hebrews 4:12, declares: "For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning tthe thoughts and intentions of the heart." ESV
I cannot prove to any man that the Bible is God's word. God's word proves to man that IT IS God's word.
I had been taught by unbelieving men, that the Bible was unreliable and not understandable, then I read it myself. The Spirit of God, working through the Living Word Of God, convinced me that it was indeed the Word of God!
You might call that "subjective" thinking, but I call it Holy Spirit conviction, without which, no man can be saved.
The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. 1 Cor. 2:14.
So, if all the Th.D's, Ph.D's, and D.D's claim that the Bible is not God's word, and is full of errors, then I will respond that they are a bunch of educated fools!

[Scott]

I am starting to lean more and more towards the understanding that most evangelical's view or the 'inerrancy' of Scripture is a bit too static and hard-nosed (suitable for a KJV only arguer or Muslim reader of the Koran). Too many times we try and read our 21st century understanding of testimonial accuracy and what it means to be without error and think the Biblical writers have to fit into that mold. And these overly stuffy characteristics are usually only ascribed to the original autographs/writings that we will probably never have.

I love the Bible - I read it, study it, teach it, preach it, spill coffee on it, etc. But I don't have Moses' or Paul's hand-written scrolls, and most are not called to/interested in getting into the Masoretic text or Septuagint. But I see these things in helping me grasp God's heart and truth:

1) I pick up my ESV or NLT to read and study it.
2) I have the third-person of the Trinity living in me to help me; I am convinced the Spirit makes the 'Word of God' come alive and real in my life
3) My life is submitted to other Christians so I don't go off on some cultic tangent.
4) I read other theologians/scholars/patriarchs to sharpen my mind and my theology, as well as helping see if I might have gone off on some unhealthy tangent (holding to a version of 'tradition', but not fully lining up with the RC understanding)
5) I realize I don't know it all, nor will ever know it all.

Just some thoughts.

[Jack]

Simon; I'm not against real science or rational thinking...I use it every day. I am against Scientism, and against Rationalism, which become the standard of truth.
Paul warns about false teachers, swollen with conceit, who are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2 tim. 3:7 ESV Jack

Simon Ravenscroft said:

Like it, Scott! I've noticed a couple of times around here that people have seemed to pit 'dependency on the Spirit' (or something like that) against mind / reason / education / scholarship.

I don't see that myself - scripture warns us not to place ALL our trust in reasoning, or 'vain philosophy' etc. but it does not tell us not to use it at all. For certain, if postmodernity has taught us anything it's that reason has limitations, but that's not a cause for throwing it out. I agree with Pope Ratzinger who said that we need to enter a new age where faith and reason are brought together as they have not been before. The two do not contradict one another, but work together. Anselm's take on theology as 'faith seeking understanding' was a good one in my view, and fosters a good kind of intellectual humility.

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent.

ScottL said:

I am starting to lean more and more towards the understanding that most evangelical's view or the 'inerrancy' of Scripture is a bit too static and hard-nosed (suitable for a KJV only arguer or Muslim reader of the Koran). Too many times we try and read our 21st century understanding of testimonial accuracy and what it means to be without error and think the Biblical writers have to fit into that mold. And these overly stuffy characteristics are usually only ascribed to the original autographs/writings that we will probably never have.
I love the Bible - I read it, study it, teach it, preach it, spill coffee on it, etc. But I don't have Moses' or Paul's hand-written scrolls, and most are not called to/interested in getting into the Masoretic text or Septuagint. But I see these things in helping me grasp God's heart and truth: 1) I pick up my ESV or NLT to read and study it. 2) I have the third-person of the Trinity living in me to help me; I am convinced the Spirit makes the 'Word of God' come alive and real in my life
3) My life is submitted to other Christians so I don't go off on some cultic tangent.
4) I read other theologians/scholars/patriarchs to sharpen my mind and my theology, as well as helping see if I might have gone off on some unhealthy tangent (holding to a version of 'tradition', but not fully lining up with the RC understanding)
5) I realize I don't know it all, nor will ever know it all.

Just some thoughts.

[JL Vaughn]

Robert,

No, I am not comparing those two verses to each other. I am comparing those verses with 2 Tim. 3:16. In all tree cases inspiration gives life, not inerrancy.

Blessings.

[Daniel]

Can one be a "fundamentalist" and *not* believe in total inerrancy? In other words, is it a fundamentalist position that my favorite translation is totally perfect in every way? If it *is* a fundamentalist position, does that make those that question it "liberal" in their theology?

[Jack]

Daniel; KJV only is not a fundamentalist position, however, SOME fundy's might take that position.
Inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs is a fundimentalist position.
Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Can one be a "fundamentalist" and *not* believe in total inerrancy? In other words, is it a fundamentalist position that my favorite translation is totally perfect in every way? If it *is* a fundamentalist position, does that make those that question it "liberal" in their theology?