Infallibility and inerrancy of the bible poll/question (Baptist/Anabaptists only)

[OrthoCanuck]

Hello all,

I asked a question a few threads back that asked about how Baptists/Anabaptists etc. viewed the Bible. I get the impression that there is no hard and fast rule among Baptists/Anabaptists etc. So I am just polling to see if this is correct.

So the poll above uses the terms inerrant and infallible.
Inerrant means that the Bible is free from historical, scientific, numerical, etc. errors.
Infallible means that the Bible is free from any error to do with faith, spirituality, etc.

The Bible "could" be infallible but not inerrant, but if it is inerrant than it has to also be infallible.

Feel free to add any comments, but I am NOT looking for a debate, just opinions.:)

[rural_preacher]

I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the 66 books of the OT & NT.





--

[Jeffrey A]

Inerrant means that the Bible is free from historical, scientific, numerical, etc. errors.
Infallible means that the Bible is free from any error to do with faith, spirituality, etc.

The Bible "could" be infallible but not inerrant, but if it is inerrant than it has to also be infallible.


This particular German Baptist (Grace Brethren) believes the Bible in its original languages (Hebrew and Greek) is "infallible" (according to your definition above), and that it was also "inerrant" (according to your definition above) in its first penning by the original authors.

Jeffrey A

[ZiSunka]

I believe it is without error doctrinally, yes. I believe that in all important matters of faith, it is inerant but that all of us pick and choose the parts we want to agree with and try to explain away the parts we don't like, and to the world that seems like we are saying that it is full of errors.

But perfect agreement on all details of history? No.

[Matthan]

We have God's promise, given us by Paul, that Scripture is His Truth. How is that? Because it is given us by inspiration of God, that's why. That makes it infallible and inerrant. There are those who might disagree with that reasoning. However, I believe it would be unwise to argue such disaggrement. After all, they would essentially be saying that either God or the Holy Spirit had made a mistake somewhere in Scripture for it to be either infallible or inerrant. That is probably not the best argument for anyone professing Christianity to support, even if playing "devil's advocate" in the process.

But, what about "humans" translating the Bible. Could they have made mistakes in translation, being only human? My answer would be that, with respect to the KJV of 1611, the scribes sought out the oldest known "original" documents to make their copies. There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit, who guided the original authors of the Bible, would not have overlooked or avoided the similar guidance of those translators. God knew just how important the KJV would be over the ensuing centuries in guiding countless individuals to His grace. He would no doubt insure the accuracy and truthfulness of the translation, just as He did for the originals.

Matthan <J>< (Festina Lente)

[seebs]

Do you want opinions from the anabaptists and other fringe folks too?

[Gold Dragon]

I'm curious about the middle option. How can something be either infallible or inerrant without being the other? I always considered those two words as being synonyms.

[ksen]

I'm curious about the middle option. How can something be either infallible or inerrant without being the other? I always considered those two words as being synonyms.

If I am remembering correctly the word "infallible" came into use during the textual debates of the 19th century. I believe B.B. Warfield started using the word as a way to describe the copied texts of Scriptures.

The originals were inerrant, and the copies were infallible according to Warfield. This was his way of fighting the textual critics of his time by saying that the copies may have certain historical errors or typographical errors but had no errors when it comes to doctrine.

Let me see if I can find a short article online about the difference.

[ksen]

Gold Dragon,

Here is a synopsis of chapter 3 of The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate by Theodore Letis (I've read portions of it and it is pretty good. I don't agree with everything Dr. Letis says, but that's a different thread.)

This chapter deals specifically with the alteration of the language about Biblical authority as this corresponds with the alteration of the paradigm of Biblical authority. When Warfield altered the locus of authority from apographs (preserved copies) to autographs (the original writings as they came from the authors which are lost forever) he also switched terminology. When the orthodox defended Scripture they always defended inspired and infallible apographs. Warfield changed the language from "infallible" to "inerrant." This is very important because infallible always and only had as its referent extant copies; inerrancy always and only has as its referent the no-longer-existing-autographic-form of the text. Because of their different referents these words are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. This is an extraordinary important issue ignored by all neo-Evangelicals and most fundamentalists.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/letis1.html

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon,

Here is a synopsis of chapter 3 of The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate by Theodore Letis (I've read portions of it and it is pretty good. I don't agree with everything Dr. Letis says, but that's a different thread.)

This chapter deals specifically with the alteration of the language about Biblical authority as this corresponds with the alteration of the paradigm of Biblical authority. When Warfield altered the locus of authority from apographs (preserved copies) to autographs (the original writings as they came from the authors which are lost forever) he also switched terminology. When the orthodox defended Scripture they always defended inspired and infallible apographs. Warfield changed the language from "infallible" to "inerrant." This is very important because infallible always and only had as its referent extant copies; inerrancy always and only has as its referent the no-longer-existing-autographic-form of the text. Because of their different referents these words are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. This is an extraordinary important issue ignored by all neo-Evangelicals and most fundamentalists.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/letis1.html

Thanks. I'll have a look into that.

[Crazy Liz]

Are you interested in Anabaptist and Quaker opinions, or just Baptist?

It seems like we have a bunch of threads again that want Anabaptists to keep out. :scratch:

[SumTinWong]

I think she meant members of this forum. Of course she may also not be aware of the differences between the two and might have thought we are all the same ?

[Crazy Liz]

I think she meant members of this forum. Of course she may also not be aware of the differences between the two and might have thought we are all the same ?

Sure. That's why I asked for clarification.

[ksen]

Mod Hat On

Members of the B/A forum may post and debate in any thread posted in the B/A forum. There should be no attempt to exclude sub-groups of this forum.

Mod Hat Off

[OrthoCanuck]

Are you interested in Anabaptist and Quaker opinions, or just Baptist?

It seems like we have a bunch of threads again that want Anabaptists to keep out. :scratch:

:blush: It wasn't my intention to keep out anyone from this forum. I guess I should have been less specific. I just meant that this question was posted for people in who belong to this forum. I am a little ignorant about what an anabaptist is though. I actually assumed that anabaptists were a reformation group who were the predecesors of Baptists. My mistake and I apologize.
I was just trying to exclude people who do not belong to any denomination that doesn't fit in this group (ie. Catholics, Anglicans, non-Denoms, etc.) I wasn't trying to be prejudiced against Anabaptists or Quakers. I also didn't vote on the poll because I am Catholic and I am part of the excluded groups.
That being said, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at the poll results. I also realized that I was also looking for answers to questions I hadn't asked yet.
For example, does a Baptist have to believe in both infallibility and inerrancy?
And also, would you say that even if the bible is infallible and inerrant, that wouldn't necessarily mean that one needs to interpret the bible literally?
For example, assuming the bible is inerrant (and thus infallible) one could still interpret the creation story in a non-literal manner (Not that I'm trying to start a creation vs. evolution argument, just using and example). If one believed that 6 days could be symbolic for stages of creation instead of 6 literal days (though 6 literal days is possible), this would not mean that they believe that the text any less true or errant, correct?

[ksen]

And also, would you say that even if the bible is infallible and inerrant, that wouldn't necessarily mean that one needs to interpret the bible literally?
For example, assuming the bible is inerrant (and thus infallible) one could still interpret the creation story in a non-literal manner (Not that I'm trying to start a creation vs. evolution argument, just using and example). If one believed that 6 days could be symbolic for stages of creation instead of 6 literal days (though 6 literal days is possible), this would not mean that they believe that the text any less true or errant, correct?

I think that would be a fair statement.

There are a wide variety of Baptists. Some more liberal, some more fundamentalist, some middle of the road. So I'm sure that even though they all hold the Bible in high regard that they would apply different hermeneutical (interpretation) principles.

IMO, liberal Baptists would be quicker to spiritualize and interpret the Scriptures symbolically than the Fundamentalist Baptists.

[Gold Dragon]

For example, does a Baptist have to believe in both infallibility and inerrancy?
And also, would you say that even if the bible is infallible and inerrant, that wouldn't necessarily mean that one needs to interpret the bible literally?
For example, assuming the bible is inerrant (and thus infallible) one could still interpret the creation story in a non-literal manner (Not that I'm trying to start a creation vs. evolution argument, just using and example). If one believed that 6 days could be symbolic for stages of creation instead of 6 literal days (though 6 literal days is possible), this would not mean that they believe that the text any less true or errant, correct?

Because of the congregational style of church governance of Baptists, Anabaptists and Quakers that emphasizes the autonomy of the local church, you won't be able to get a single all-encompassing answer for any of those three groups.

I will try to speak for Baptists and not the other two groups.

Biblical authority is considered to be a key Baptist belief (or distinctive). Biblical authority is usually understood to be equivalent to the doctrine of sola scriptura where the bible is the final authority on all doctrine. Usually this includes describing the bible as inerrant/infallible but not always. Within the subset of those who view the bible as inerrant and infallible, many insist on using literal interpretations of the bible. In that subset, there are many different origins view of which YEC is probably the most popular. However none of these positions are all-encompassing, even within their subset. So you could have Baptists that believe in:

1) Biblical authority inerr/inf, lit, YEC
2) Biblical authority inerr/inf, lit, non-YEC
3) Biblical authority inerr/inf, non-lit, YEC
4) Biblical authority inerr/inf, non-lit, non-YEC
5) Biblical authority non-inerr/inf, non-lit, non-YEC

If you were to ask me to estimate the breakdown of Baptists that subscribe to these five views, it might be something like

1) 35%
2) 10%
3) 30%
4) 20%
5) 5%

I guess it is possible to have strange combinations like

Biblical authority non-inerr/inf, lit, YEC
Biblical authority non-inerr/inf, non-lit, YEC

But they are probably few and far between.

[Imagine_your_dreams]

I believe the Bible is both. It wouldn't make sense for the Bible to speak so strongly against false witness and then be a false witness in itself. It wouldn't make any sense.

[Andyman_1970]

This particular German Baptist (Grace Brethren) believes the Bible in its original languages (Hebrew and Greek) is "infallible" (according to your definition above), and that it was also "inerrant" (according to your definition above) in its first penning by the original authors.

Jeffrey A

I'll agree..............

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

I affirm the
The Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy


http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm

Peace to u,

Bill

[seebs]

FWIW, I don't think I know or care. There are factual claims which seem obviously false, but irrelevant. But... It doesn't matter. The Bible isn't seeking salvation; I am. And I am fallible. So, if you give me an infallible text, and I try to understand it, what I end up believing will be incorrect, even if the text was infallible. So who cares?

The danger is that, believing the text to be infallible, we will come to think our understanding of it infallible...

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Good Day, All

I affirm the
The Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy


http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm

Peace to u,

Bill

I agree with Bill on this topic.

[ZiSunka]

For example, assuming the bible is inerrant (and thus infallible) one could still interpret the creation story in a non-literal manner (Not that I'm trying to start a creation vs. evolution argument, just using and example). If one believed that 6 days could be symbolic for stages of creation instead of 6 literal days (though 6 literal days is possible), this would not mean that they believe that the text any less true or errant, correct?

All that means is that it is incomplete in the sense that God doesn't use the Bible to tell us how or when he created the earth, only that he created it for our pleasure and use. It doesn't indicate errancy or fallibility. It's only a partial revelation of creation matters.

[Andyman_1970]

The danger is that, believing the text to be infallible, we will come to think our understanding of it infallible...

:amen:

[Maeyken]

I agree with what seebs said. Perhaps if I did some research on infalliability and inerrancy I would come to some conclusion about what I believe. As of right now, there are other things I care much more about!

Here's what the Mennonite Church believes about Scripture (taken from the "Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective)
http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.4.html

[aReformedPatriot]

Inerrant means that the Bible is free from historical, scientific, numerical, etc. errors.
Infallible means that the Bible is free from any error to do with faith, spirituality, etc.

The Bible "could" be infallible but not inerrant, but if it is inerrant than it has to also be infallible.

Feel free to add any comments, but I am NOT looking for a debate, just opinions.:)

Not true, because the words are defined as meaning 2 different things. Because they have been defined in this thread you must abide by the norms of utterance of the context given. That is if you want to be hermeneutically correct... (^_^ your inadvertantly helping me study for a test)

So since infallibility applies to matters of faith only, an adherent of this would not have to agree that the bible is correct on its numbers or scientific mentionings, or be accurate when it lists a king because that is a whole different thing.

One who only adheres to the bible being inerrant only agrees that the bible is correct on matters of science or biblical locations, etc. But can totally mislead on matters of salvation.

Logically though, it seems if you were to adhere to inerrancy you might as well believe infallibility but it doesnt have to be that way.

You Follow?

The danger is that, believing the text to be infallible, [sometimes] we will come to think our understanding of it infallible...

:amen: though I would make the change in red.

[MbiaJc]

This particular German Baptist (Grace Brethren) believes the Bible in its original languages (Hebrew and Greek) is "infallible" (according to your definition above), and that it was also "inerrant" (according to your definition above) in its first penning by the original authors.

Jeffrey A


Well this USA Georgia Baptist believes that also.:thumbsup:

[MbiaJc]

FWIW, I don't think I know or care. There are factual claims which seem obviously false, but irrelevant. But... It doesn't matter. The Bible isn't seeking salvation; I am. And I am fallible. So, if you give me an infallible text, and I try to understand it, what I end up believing will be incorrect, even if the text was infallible. So who cares?

The danger is that, believing the text to be infallible, we will come to think our understanding of it infallible...

Well I for one do care. If it is not infallible then what it says is not worth the paper it is written on. Not to mention not being a true witness of God's plan of salvation for man. Also if the Bible is not infallible there would be no place we could go to find spiritual truth. For Jesus says these words are Spirit.

[OrthoCanuck]

Not true, because the words are defined as meaning 2 different things. Because they have been defined in this thread you must abide by the norms of utterance of the context given. That is if you want to be hermeneutically correct... (^_^ your inadvertantly helping me study for a test)

So since infallibility applies to matters of faith only, an adherent of this would not have to agree that the bible is correct on its numbers or scientific mentionings, or be accurate when it lists a king because that is a whole different thing.

One who only adheres to the bible being inerrant only agrees that the bible is correct on matters of science or biblical locations, etc. But can totally mislead on matters of salvation.

Logically though, it seems if you were to adhere to inerrancy you might as well believe infallibility but it doesnt have to be that way.

You Follow?

:doh: Thanks. You are quite correct. Considering all of the Philosophy courses I've taken, I should have caught that before I wrote it. Good thing you pointed that one out, though I do think it would be foolish to believe the Bible to be inerrant yet not infallible (given the definitions I gave).

[ZiSunka]

Well I for one do care. If it is not infallible then what it says is not worth the paper it is written on. Not to mention not being a true witness of God's plan of salvation for man. Also if the Bible is not infallible there would be no place we could go to find spiritual truth. For Jesus says these words are Spirit.

Amen!

[aReformedPatriot]

:doh: Thanks. You are quite correct. Considering all of the Philosophy courses I've taken, I should have caught that before I wrote it. Good thing you pointed that one out, though I do think it would be foolish to believe the Bible to be inerrant yet not infallible (given the definitions I gave).

Your welcome, I believe in both by the way. I believe scripture is perfectly able to give us everything we need aside from the tradititions of man:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

What more do we need?

Secondly, I believe it to be inerrant in everything. God did indeed choose to alow human personality to enter into scripture, but I also believe that he had divine providence over what went into it. Since all scripture is God breathed, theres no reason for him to allow something decietful to enter into it.

For instance, its popular to cite archaeology as being proof that the Bible misleads and is inaccurate but hear this:

"...reminds us that it was not until 1932 that we had any external verification for the exile of Jehoiachin in Babylon from the tablets of W. Weidner. Nor did we get attestation for Pontius Pilate until 1961 or for the procurator Felix until 1966, or the "house of David" until the aramaic stele fragment was found at Tel Dan and published in 1993.

...so, "no evidence" may only be a witness that there is no evidence as yet." (A History of Israel by Walter Kaiser pg. 6)

Can you imagine not having an attestation of Pilate until 1961?? Thats a long time. God is faithful and true, he wont allow any false information in his word. Though we ourselves can screw it up.

[Gold Dragon]

FWIW, I don't think I know or care. There are factual claims which seem obviously false, but irrelevant. But... It doesn't matter. The Bible isn't seeking salvation; I am. And I am fallible. So, if you give me an infallible text, and I try to understand it, what I end up believing will be incorrect, even if the text was infallible. So who cares?

The danger is that, believing the text to be infallible, we will come to think our understanding of it infallible...

Perfectly stated! :amen:

[Leimeng]

~ At the same time we should also ask if we believe that our interpretations of Scripture are infallible or inerrant. And, what is the basis to judge that our interpretations of Scripture are so?
~ All things in the Bible are truely stated, but does that mean that all things stated in the Bible are truth? (It is not a trick question, but it might seem that way.)
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~
~ The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde

[aReformedPatriot]

~ At the same time we should also ask if we believe that our interpretations of Scripture are infallible or inerrant. And, what is the basis to judge that our interpretations of Scripture are so?

My interpretations are not infallible, I make mistakes and I am sure that there is somewhere in my doctrine that I'll fall short. Being called into the ministry its a large fear of mine to teach false doctrine, I dont want to do that. Taking hermeneutics this semester has really helped me out in understanding scripture. Truth is truth, there cannot be multiple meanings to a text so your either right, or your wrong.

~ All things in the Bible are truely stated, but does that mean that all things stated in the Bible are truth? (It is not a trick question, but it might seem that way.)

hmmm. If they are truly stated, then they have to be truth? :confused:

Im lost. :sorry:

~ The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde

True, the only thing thats pure is God, and He is rarely simple.

[Crazy Liz]

~ All things in the Bible are truely stated, but does that mean that all things stated in the Bible are truth? (It is not a trick question, but it might seem that way.)

hmmm. If they are truly stated, then they have to be truth? :confused:

Im lost. :sorry:

Ooohh! Ooh! I know! I know! :wave:

The Bible records instances where people lied or were mistaken. These would be examples of untrue statements truly stated.

While such examples exist and can certainly be explained in this way, this explanation does not solve all the problems of inerrancy.

One of the most problematic examples to all theories of inerrancy is the speech of Stephen in Acts 7. Stephen misstates several historical details, as recorded in the OT. Of all the discrepancies in scripture, this is one of the most problematical for those who claim inerrancy is essential to inspiration. One may say the Bible is inspired and inerrant, and therefore Luke inerrantly recorded Stephen's errors. However, if this is true, then what Stephen said in his final sermon could not have been inspired. :scratch:

This is one of the biggest problems with holding that inerrancy is essential to inspiration.

[Gold Dragon]

Taking hermeneutics this semester has really helped me out in understanding scripture. Truth is truth, there cannot be multiple meanings to a text so your either right, or your wrong.

I hope that isn't what your hermeneutics professors are teaching you.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. And part of it is using context to discover the original intent of the author to the best of our abilities with the assumption that the author had one intent.

However, to extrapolate from there that the scriptures then only have one possible meaning is contrary to how the New Testament authors and church fathers themselves quoted and interpreted the scriptures. Especially the NT authors who often used scripture outside the intended meaning of the original authors. We attribute this to the Holy Spirit inspiring meaning into the words of the authors that they didn't necessarily intend.

Here are a few discussions we have been having in the Bibliology and Hermeneutics forum about this topic.
Grammatical-historical interpretation and the NT (http://www.christianforums.com/t1257715-grammatical-historical-interpretation-and-the-nt.html)
Can verses be interpreted multiple ways or not? (http://www.christianforums.com/t1263143-can-verses-be-interpreted-multiple-ways-or-not.html)
"Author's Original Intent"...some ramblings (http://www.christianforums.com/t1183233-authors-original-intentsome-ramblings.html)

[aReformedPatriot]

I hope that isn't what your hermeneutics professors are teaching you.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. And part of it is using context to discover the original intent of the author to the best of our abilities with the assumption that the author had one intent.

However, to extrapolate from there that the scriptures then only have one possible meaning is contrary to how the New Testament authors and church fathers themselves quoted and interpreted the scriptures. Especially the NT authors who often used scripture outside the intended meaning of the original authors. We attribute this to the Holy Spirit inspiring meaning into the words of the authors that they didn't necessarily intend.

Here are a few discussions we have been having in the Bibliology and Hermeneutics forum about this topic.
Grammatical-historical interpretation and the NT (http://www.christianforums.com/t1257715-grammatical-historical-interpretation-and-the-nt.html)
Can verses be interpreted multiple ways or not? (http://www.christianforums.com/t1263143-can-verses-be-interpreted-multiple-ways-or-not.html)
"Author's Original Intent"...some ramblings (http://www.christianforums.com/t1183233-authors-original-intentsome-ramblings.html)

Fascinating isnt it?

[aReformedPatriot]

Ooohh! Ooh! I know! I know! :wave:

The Bible records instances where people lied or were mistaken. These would be examples of untrue statements truly stated.


:doh:Thanks for clearing that up for me Liz!!

[SumTinWong]

FWIW, I don't think I know or care. There are factual claims which seem obviously false, but irrelevant. But... It doesn't matter. The Bible isn't seeking salvation; I am. And I am fallible. So, if you give me an infallible text, and I try to understand it, what I end up believing will be incorrect, even if the text was infallible. So who cares?

The danger is that, believing the text to be infallible, we will come to think our understanding of it infallible...
Wow that was brilliant.

I did not vote by the way.

[OrthoCanuck]

Wow that was brilliant.

I did not vote by the way.

I agree that was a brilliant observation that would never have ever crossed my mind. I wonder now if that idea might have prompted the Cathoic church to generate the doctrine of Papal infallibility?

Just to clarify the Catholic concept for those who don't understand this properly (and so Papal infallibility doesn't become a debate item and take away from the OP), the idea is that the Pope and by extension the Magisterium (teaching office of the church) is infallible in matters of faith (only faith: not in other areas such as science, politics, etc.) which would include biblical interpretation. How often this 'power' was exercised is up to debate with the number ranging from 2 to over 20 times.

-Peace.

BTW, I actually have an Uncle Bud.:D Bud isn't his real name but he goes by Bud, so I just know him as Uncle Bud.

[Matthan]

To even imply that Scripture is imperfect, regardless of the reasoning employed, is to doubt God's truthfulness and/or the Holy Spirit's diligence.

Matthan <J><

[Tenorvoice]

I belive that not only is the Bible God Breathed, (inspired), but even the order of the words are too. God does not do anything by mistake.

[OrthoCanuck]

To even imply that Scripture is imperfect, regardless of the reasoning employed, is to doubt God's truthfulness and/or the Holy Spirit's diligence.

Matthan <J><

I have to disagree. Scripture doesn't have to be perfect to contain all that is needed for salvation. The Bible is not word for word the speech of God. It is inspired by God, but put in the words of men. Does the Bible contain what God wishes to teach us for our spiritual growth and salvation...yes, but that is not the same as being perfect. Only God is perfect. To say that scripture is perfect is to make it an idol and a rival to God. There are things in the Bible that could be not factually true, but still spiritually true. Jesus spoke in parables, there was no real prodigal son, but the meaning of the story is a spiritual truth. Now, I'm not saying the Bible is filled with falsehood or such, but it is a stretch to say that to believe the Bible is imperfect is to doubt God. The Bible is a guide for us and a creation of God made with human hands. We are God's creation and are imperfect. I think when ever God uses humans as his instruments there is an acceptable amount of imperfection mixed in the result. Any inperfection found in scripture would in no way change the effectiveness of scripture or the spiritual truths therein. I've read countless attempts at pointing out Biblical contradictions, and for the most part people have spent a lot of energy explaining away any apparent contradictions. But in all of my reading in this area, I do not recall any "contradictions" having any impact on any spiritual teaching. For example, when Jesus sent out his disciples could they take a staff or not? One gospel account says yes the other says no. I'm not going to get into the responses for this apparent contradiction (I say apparent because I'm not concerned whether or not this is one or not). But does it really affect any teaching God wishes to convey to us? Not at all. Does the Bible ever say only faith will save you then say that only your works will save you? No. Does it ever say that Jesus paid for our sins by his death and then say that his death had no effect on our salvation? No. See where I'm going with this? It is extremely dangerous to call anything other than God perfect when people are involved.
Incidentally, your comment reminds me almost word for word of a statement I had heard from a Catholic before, yet you have to replace "Scripture" with "Church teachings." I imagine we can debate this issue further, but I would not be surprised if in the end we agree to disagree.

Peace of Christ with you.

[Crazy Liz]

To even imply that Scripture is imperfect, regardless of the reasoning employed, is to doubt God's truthfulness and/or the Holy Spirit's diligence.

Matthan <J><

So what do you propose? Do we ignore the whole question, rather than doubt God?

Would our own integrity not require us to confess that we do indeed have doubts?

[MbiaJc]

So what do you propose? Do we ignore the whole question, rather than doubt God?

Would our own integrity not require us to confess that we do indeed have doubts?


I had rather doubt man, rather than God. There is always the possibility I might be wrong not God.

[SumTinWong]

I believe the Word as defined in John 1:1 is infallable.

John 1:1 "In the beginning[/url] was the Word, and the Word was with God,[url="joh1_notes.htm#12"] (joh1_notes.htm#11) and the Word was fully God."

[OrthoCanuck]

I believe the Word as defined in John 1:1 is infallable.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God."

Agreed.:thumbsup:

[MbiaJc]

I believe the Word as defined in John 1:1 is infallable.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God."

Hey unk I buy that.

[Matthan]

I have to disagree. Scripture doesn't have to be perfect to contain all that is needed for salvation. The Bible is not word for word the speech of God. It is inspired by God, but put in the words of men.

Canadian75, to my simple mind, that which is inspired by God is inspired completely. I do not believe He would inspire a message to us, and then turn away and let men screw it up in delivery. I believe He would inspire the message and the messenger, insuring that what He wants us to know is there for us to know it in His correct form.

"Does the Bible contain what God wishes to teach us for our spiritual growth and salvation...yes, but that is not the same as being perfect. Only God is perfect."

The way I read this quotation, to paraphrase you, 'Does the Bible contain what God wishes to teach us for our spiritual growth and salvation...yes, but what God inspired is not the same as being perfect.' I would beg to differ with you. What God inspires is perfect in His perfection. It is only when man screws around with what God inspires that imperfection creaps in. With respect to the Bible, I firmly believe that the original translations, and specifically the KJV, are the perfect translated inspiration of God. He knew long before this translation was completed how many people it would affect, and He made sure it was perfect. As for the various translations since then, that is man's handiwork. There is even one version that has removed "washed in the blood" completely. That, sir, is man's imperfection at its best (or worst).

"To say that scripture is perfect is to make it an idol and a rival to God."

How so? How is saying that Scripture is perfect is in any way making it an idol and a rival to God? If God tells us, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life," how can that truth become corrupted into an idol? Or, how can the entire and complete compelation of Scripture, which is literally our roadmap to Heaven, become an idol and rival to its real and true author? Do we think that, because Scripture is perfect by God's will, that same Scripture takes on a grace to life everlasting of its own. No true Christian would ever believe that, and non-believers will believe what they will.

"Now, I'm not saying the Bible is filled with falsehood or such, but it is a stretch to say that to believe the Bible is imperfect is to doubt God."

I stated, To even imply that Scripture is imperfect, regardless of the reasoning employed, is to doubt God's truthfulness and/or the Holy Spirit's diligence. We all agree that God is absolutely perfect. And, He never lies, or makes mistakes, are also absolutes that we as Christians will always agree with. God inspired Scripture. wholly and completely, AND He inspired those who actually did the original writing. Does anyone think that God inspired them to error?

"I imagine we can debate this issue further, but I would not be surprised if in the end we agree to disagree."

Agreed, my brother. And God's peace be with you, too.

Matthan <J><

[Crazy Liz]

Canadian75, to my simple mind, that which is inspired by God is inspired completely. I do not believe He would inspire a message to us, and then turn away and let men screw it up in delivery. I believe He would inspire the message and the messenger, insuring that what He wants us to know is there for us to know it in His correct form.

In view of this, what is your take on Stephen's sermon in Acts 7?

Was Stephen not inspired in saying what he did in verses 2-54? Or did he just become inspired in verse 55? Why would Luke have been inspired to record Stephen's uninspired sermon?

[seebs]

I believe the Word as defined in John 1:1 is infallable.

John 1:1 "In the beginning[/url] was the Word, and the Word was with God,[url="joh1_notes.htm#12"] (joh1_notes.htm#11) and the Word was fully God."

Sure. And what is the Word?

John 1:14

It's Jesus, not the Bible, that is part of the Trinity.

The conflation of the Bible with Jesus is called Bibliolatry, and it is one of the spectres which haunts us.

[seebs]

To even imply that Scripture is imperfect, regardless of the reasoning employed, is to doubt God's truthfulness and/or the Holy Spirit's diligence.

This seems a little circular. There are many books which claim to be written by God, which I doubt the perfection of...

But as noted, it makes no difference. I will not know in this life "what the Bible really says"; my ability to understand and interpret text is far short of the task. I don't believe in an infallible interpretive authority (so I'm not Catholic), and without one, all I have is fallible interpretations, and a chance to do some seeking.

[Gold Dragon]

Taking hermeneutics this semester has really helped me out in understanding scripture.

Hey TLE, I'm currently re-reading Fee and Stuart's, How to Read the Bible for All it is Worth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310384915/002-0947488-8420837) and I thought of your hermeneutics class.

I hope this book is included in your course book list since it is an easy to read and very valuable introduction to hermeneutics (even if they use that term in an unorthodox way).

[SumTinWong]

Sure. And what is the Word?
Ummm Jesus...



John 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It's Jesus, not the Bible, that is part of the Trinity.
That was my point seebs. Did you you think I meant the Bible was this word? What a joke. I believe that the Word of God is Jesus the Christ and He alone is infallable.

The conflation of the Bible with Jesus is called Bibliolatry, and it is one of the spectres which haunts us.
Sure it is, along with many other plagues...

[seebs]

That was my point seebs. Did you you think I meant the Bible was this word? What a joke. I believe that the Word of God is Jesus the Christ and He alone is infallable.

Sorry, I'm a little trigger-happy on that. I was just having a conversation in GA with someone who referred to Jesus, and "the Word which is Him" to mean "the Bible".

[SumTinWong]

Scared me there. I heard Kenneth Copeland say once, "this book is not about somebody it IS somebody". Don't listen to him anymore ;) I will be more precise next time, thanks for pointing that out anyway, as looking at it, it could be seen that way.

[seebs]

Yeah. It's one of those things I never knew was a problem until I got here, but I see about a person a month arguing that the Bible is part of the trinity, co-eternal, actually Jesus, or whatever.

[Crazy Liz]

Hey TLE, I'm currently re-reading Fee and Stuart's, How to Read the Bible for All it is Worth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310384915/002-0947488-8420837) and I thought of your hermeneutics class.

I hope this book is included in your course book list since it is an easy to read and very valuable introduction to hermeneutics (even if they use that term in an unorthodox way).

I agree that Fee is an excellent source for beginning to study hermeneutics and exegesis. He has several titles, some for popular audiences, some scholarly, some assuming some knowledge of original languages and some not. TLE, I also hope you are using this book or some other book by Fee.

(BTW, I tried to send you a PM yesterday, but your box was full. You need to delete some PMs once in a while. ;) )

[benlym]

I believe all that God has intended Us to know is in the Holy Bible. I believe all the important facts,doctrine is present!

Whatever is not present will be known when we are reunited with our father... :D

[PaladinGirl]

I'm not currently Baptist but I did grow up as Baptist and I'd have to say that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant.

[Aaiden]

The Bible was written by man. Man is not perfect. Therfore the Bible is not perfect. Simple logic eh?

[rural_preacher]

The Bible was written by man. Man is not perfect. Therfore the Bible is not perfect. Simple logic eh?

Mere human logic cannot even begin to grasp God or His Ways. "Simple logic" cannot explain the Divine reality of God's written Word. That is why we must think with the mind of Christ.

I Corinthians 2
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man discerns all things, but he himself is not discerned by anyone: “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

I Corinthians 1
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?...For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Isaiah 55
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

II Peter 1
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


--

[Aaiden]

Mere human logic cannot even begin to grasp God or His Ways. "Simple logic" cannot explain the Divine reality of God's written Word. That is why we must think with the mind of Christ.

The Word of God and the Bible are two different things. The Bible cannot capture His Ways. The Bible was INSPIRED by God and His Word but it cannot be the same. Another point is that the words written over time thousands of years ago are not the same, so further has man's imperfections contaminated the Bible.

[rural_preacher]

The Word of God and the Bible are two different things. The Bible cannot capture His Ways. The Bible was INSPIRED by God and His Word but it cannot be the same. Another point is that the words written over time thousands of years ago are not the same, so further has man's imperfections contaminated the Bible.

You and I will simply have to disagree. I believe the Bible (OT & NT) is the Word of God - perfect, preserved and totally reliable. If not, our faith is entirely in vain.

--

[Aaiden]

You and I will simply have to disagree. I believe the Bible (OT & NT) is the Word of God - perfect, preserved and totally reliable. If not, our faith is entirely in vain.

I do agree that we can disagree. But I would not consider our faith in vain given that the Bible isn't perfect... our spiritual life is continually in flux and growth. And as God gave us a mind He gave us the ability to interpret and learn. The Bible does not have to be perfect for us to learn from God or be with him.

[seebs]

You and I will simply have to disagree. I believe the Bible (OT & NT) is the Word of God - perfect, preserved and totally reliable. If not, our faith is entirely in vain.

--

This is uncomfortably close to the heresy of Bibliolatry. There is only one Word, and that is Jesus.

[MrJim]

This is uncomfortably close to the heresy of Bibliolatry. There is only one Word, and that is Jesus.

To build upon this thought (weighing in from a historical anabapt. position) is that without the Spirit of God the words are just ink and paper. The Word made Flesh must be alive in us or the written word is of little use. To quote the anabaptist martyr Balthasar Hubmaier "The WOrd of God is water to all those who thirst for salvation and is made alive in us through the Spirit of God, without whose work it is only a dead letter." (1526)

[Stefan Davidovich]

What are the dangers of so called 'bibliolatry' (it's only an idol if we love it more than we love God and frankly i think most of us are more in danger of idolizing our TV's than idolizing the Bible)? It seems to me that those who hold a high view of scripture also hold a high view of God and they take him seriously at his word.

I see many MANY dangers that come from viewing the Scripture as anything less than inerrant...but I can't say i see any dangers arising from bibliolatry - those who do generally have a child-like faith that moves mountains (remember that most of those great men and women of faith had such a high view of Scripture)! When we take the Scripture as anything less than inerrant the messenger often shifts from God to man...from God to Paul or from God to Matthew. I see this all the time at Seminary...instead of trying to understand God's message my prof's seek to understand the Markan message...and of course there is Markan theology and Matthean theology and Pauline theology etc. Where does this lead?...trust me when I say that it leads to UNHEALTHY skepticism.

What we need in the church today is more faith, not more skepticism. We need more people who will take the Bible at its word - we need more child-like faith that moves mountains...

I don't know my audience - I am confident that the rest of the members on this forum have the best of intentions. I am not trying to attack any person or persons...I only desire to defend a high view of Scripture, because I have seen where other views lead. Please don't misunderstand me...I speak so strongly only because my heart grieves over the state of our 21st century church. And I believe that a big part of the problem is a lower view of scripture (increased skepticism...more knowledge...and less faith).

Thanks for your patience (know that this meant with the best of intentions)...God bless.:)

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

[Tenorvoice]

Mere human logic cannot even begin to grasp God or His Ways. "Simple logic" cannot explain the Divine reality of God's written Word. That is why we must think with the mind of Christ.

I Corinthians 2


I Corinthians 1


Isaiah 55


II Peter 1



--

Amen My Brother, preach it!!!!!

[rural_preacher]

Amen, Stefan Davidovich!





You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Stefan Davidovich again.



--

[MrJim]

What are the dangers of so called 'bibliolatry' (it's only an idol if we love it more than we love God and frankly i think most of us are more in danger of idolizing our TV's than idolizing the Bible)? It seems to me that those who hold a high view of scripture also hold a high view of God and they take him seriously at his word.

I see many MANY dangers that come from viewing the Scripture as anything less than inerrant...but I can't say i see any dangers arising from bibliolatry - those who do generally have a child-like faith that moves mountains (remember that most of those great men and women of faith had such a high view of Scripture)! When we take the Scripture as anything less than inerrant the messenger often shifts from God to man...from God to Paul or from God to Matthew. I see this all the time at Seminary...instead of trying to understand God's message my prof's seek to understand the Markan message...and of course there is Markan theology and Matthean theology and Pauline theology etc. Where does this lead?...trust me when I say that it leads to UNHEALTHY skepticism.

What we need in the church today is more faith, not more skepticism. We need more people who will take the Bible at its word - we need more child-like faith that moves mountains...

I don't know my audience - I am confident that the rest of the members on this forum have the best of intentions. I am not trying to attack any person or persons...I only desire to defend a high view of Scripture, because I have seen where other views lead. Please don't misunderstand me...I speak so strongly only because my heart grieves over the state of our 21st century church. And I believe that a big part of the problem is a lower view of scripture (increased skepticism...more knowledge...and less faith).

Thanks for your patience (know that this meant with the best of intentions)...God bless.:)

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

:amen:
The danger, however, is the same the pharisees (and others) had-a faith apart from the Spirit of God. Scripture is inerrant, and yet even inerrant scripture can be used in an abusive manner. History is coated in the blood and broken bodies of people using the scripture in an improper manner. And we all think that we are doing it right, just like [fill in your favorite example] did.

[Tenorvoice]

What are the dangers of so called 'bibliolatry' (it's only an idol if we love it more than we love God and frankly i think most of us are more in danger of idolizing our TV's than idolizing the Bible)? It seems to me that those who hold a high view of scripture also hold a high view of God and they take him seriously at his word.

I see many MANY dangers that come from viewing the Scripture as anything less than inerrant...but I can't say i see any dangers arising from bibliolatry - those who do generally have a child-like faith that moves mountains (remember that most of those great men and women of faith had such a high view of Scripture)! When we take the Scripture as anything less than inerrant the messenger often shifts from God to man...from God to Paul or from God to Matthew. I see this all the time at Seminary...instead of trying to understand God's message my prof's seek to understand the Markan message...and of course there is Markan theology and Matthean theology and Pauline theology etc. Where does this lead?...trust me when I say that it leads to UNHEALTHY skepticism.

What we need in the church today is more faith, not more skepticism. We need more people who will take the Bible at its word - we need more child-like faith that moves mountains...

I don't know my audience - I am confident that the rest of the members on this forum have the best of intentions. I am not trying to attack any person or persons...I only desire to defend a high view of Scripture, because I have seen where other views lead. Please don't misunderstand me...I speak so strongly only because my heart grieves over the state of our 21st century church. And I believe that a big part of the problem is a lower view of scripture (increased skepticism...more knowledge...and less faith).

Thanks for your patience (know that this meant with the best of intentions)...God bless.:)

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

I have to agree 100% with you Brother. From my experiance in alot of "churches" today. The people that go there only go there if they like what they hear. "to have their ears tickled" It really makes my blood boil to hear people say that the Bible has mistakes in it. HOW???? God it PERFECT!! and since :2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

you either have to say that it is ALL or none.