Biblical Inerrancy

[Wissing]

I'd like to discuss the issue of biblical inerrancy, and hear what other Christians have to say about it. I'll give a little background as to why I'm bringing it up, and who I am.

I've been a Christian most of my life. I've always held the view that the Bible is inerrant, and spent much time trying to reconcile various "contradictions". Over the years, I slowly came to realize (as I'm sure many who debate on this forum have) that it's one thing to convince oneself of what one already believes, and quite another to convince someone else. In discussing my belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I found myself more often on the defense, trying to hold on to that belief, than really sharing it with anyone else. It seems to me that the idea of Biblical inerrancy is meant to establish a moral grounding point that doesn't shift, when instead it often turns into a petty argument about science, philosophy, or semantics. For this reason, I have been growing less and less passionate about my belief. In fact, I'm beginning to see the word "inerrant" as a very serious problem within the church; one that causes division, but brings no good to the table.

I find the Bible to be good, but not the whole story. I don't think it's erroneous or anything, but it's just not supposed to be read like that. It's a collection of writings that collectively tell a story of God's plan to restore mankind. "Inerrant" would imply that it's a constitution. I cannot be passionate about my faith if it's derived from a book written centuries before me. Only if there's a living God moving today can I muster any passion. And so, I now no longer consider the Bible to be inerrant - not because I want to make up my own rules, but because it just seems disingenuous to describe it that way.

I'd like to put down some things that have been on my mind, and see if anyone would like to comment:

1.) It seems that the Bible says very little about itself. I would think that, if God intended us to be reading from a perfect book, he would have at least inspired someone to write that down in the book itself - it shouldn't be debatable, but it is.

2.) Even if we took the few verses that refer to "scripture" (which may or may not mean the 66 books of the modern Bible) as fact, it would be circular logic, because we would have to first assume inerrancy to be sure those verses did not err.

3.) Paul mentions that the law will not be written in ink, but on human hearts. I know we need a standard to keep from shifting our beliefs, but I would think that standard would be the living God. Isn't that Christ's whole point? If we derive full authority from a book, it's just Judaism all over again.

4.) The Bible, even if inerrant, is not 100% clear, and contains many seeming contradictions. The sermon on the mount repeatedly states that various sins disqualify a soul from heaven, yet the Calvinist philosophy based on John 3:16 insists that salvation is exclusively a question of faith. This is extremely critical, and possibly the most divisive issue in the church, and yet people often just pick one, ignore the other, and still walk around saying "inerrant".

5.) The seeming contradictions can be reconciled, but it takes a scholar or theologian to do it; the average person is thus shunned from God's word, or has to take the word of a theologian. This goes against the teaching that the faith is for all nations and races, unless we are only talking about the educated class of each nation.

6.) The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, if nothing else, proves that the word "inerrant" requires a full page report to be properly understood. It seems to me that, if we need that big of an asterisk after a word, perhaps we are using the wrong terminology. The statement essentially redefines the word "inerrant" such that it has a completely different meaning when applied to the Bible.

[Wissing]

@ fatherlearningtolove, who sent me a PM, but I am unable to reply until I get up to 15 posts...

Thanks for the reply. I agree with that description. Strangely, I was taught that mentality by none other than an inerrancy-Calvinist-Baptist church, which seemed to be spot on until I read their doctrinal statements. It's almost like most churches don't practically believe "inerrancy", but insist on saying it anyway.

[otseng]

And so, I now no longer consider the Bible to be inerrant - not because I want to make up my own rules, but because it just seems disingenuous to describe it that way.

Myself, I do not use the terms "inerrant" or "infallible" to describe the Bible. I prefer "authoritative". The Bible is the source for all Christian doctrine and practice.

3.) Paul mentions that the law will not be written in ink, but on human hearts. I know we need a standard to keep from shifting our beliefs, but I would think that standard would be the living God. Isn't that Christ's whole point? If we derive full authority from a book, it's just Judaism all over again.

To add to this, what we should worship is God, not the Bible. Unfortunately, there is the tendency among Christians to idolize the Bible.

5.) The seeming contradictions can be reconciled, but it takes a scholar or theologian to do it; the average person is thus shunned from God's word, or has to take the word of a theologian. This goes against the teaching that the faith is for all nations and races, unless we are only talking about the educated class of each nation.

I personally believe we overcomplicate things. Jesus preached (God's words in the most literal sense) very simply. He did not use technical jargon. He did not try to impress with his theological knowledge. And anybody, regardless of age, culture, background can grasp his message.

6.) The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, if nothing else, proves that the word "inerrant" requires a full page report to be properly understood.

If one starts to add many qualifications to a definition, to me the definition then becomes meaningless.

[Wissing]

So then, whoever is in agreement, what sort of church do you go to? It seems rather hard to find one that doesn't subscribe to the inerrant view.

I'd like to hear from any inerrancy supporters too. Can you make the case that your stance is Spirit-led? What positive results have you witnessed that may lead from such a view of the Bible?

[otseng]

It seems rather hard to find one that doesn't subscribe to the inerrant view.

I think it's easy to find a church that doesn't subscribe that the Bible is both inerrant and authoritative. But, I don't know of any that says that it is authoritative, but not inerrant.

I'd like to hear from any inerrancy supporters too. Can you make the case that your stance is Spirit-led? What positive results have you witnessed that may lead from such a view of the Bible?

To add to the issue of inerrancy, in the Chicago statement, inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts.

"Under the statement inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_St ... _Inerrancy

However, the Bibles we use now are obviously not the original manuscripts, so we cannot apply the term inerrancy to what we hold in our hands. So, the best term I use to describe Bibles that we have today is authoritative.

[Wissing]

Whatever word we use to describe the Bible, there's a practical reason this is bothering me. I think it has to do with some of the things the Bible stresses.

For one example, evangelism. It's getting to the point where I just don't see a need for marketing. Spreading the word of Christ to the ends of the earth makes sense only in the context of maybe the first 1000, maybe 1500 years of Christianity. Nowadays, when the Bible App has like 10 bazillion subscribers, it's this mentality is no longer applicable. So churches try to make it applicable by assuming that other churches are wrong, and need to be taught better, and all you get is fights around the dinner table.

Then there's always the whole "homosexuality" issue... for which I find myself sitting on the fence... don't even wanna go there.

What else... divorce! I know plenty of people who both A) hold the Bible to be authoritative, and B) prioritize personal happiness above staying married.

And, of course, charity... on the one hand, we have "teach a man to fish", which makes sense in practical everyday life; on the other hand, the Bible seems to convey a tone of sacrificial giving - regardless of whether the recipients have earned it (i.e. Jesus' self-sacrifice, a gift to undeserving humanity).

So "authoritative" or "inerrant" are reduced to catch-words that have no practical significance, because life experience tends to supersede the Bible, even for the most devout.

[Chabalala]

Hello.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the kitchen, but I'll try my best to comment on some of these.

I'd like to put down some things that have been on my mind, and see if anyone would like to comment:

1.) It seems that the Bible says very little about itself. I would think that, if God intended us to be reading from a perfect book, he would have at least inspired someone to write that down in the book itself - it shouldn't be debatable, but it is.

2.) Even if we took the few verses that refer to "scripture" (which may or may not mean the 66 books of the modern Bible) as fact, it would be circular logic, because we would have to first assume inerrancy to be sure those verses did not err.

Well, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I would believe this is good enough.

3.) Paul mentions that the law will not be written in ink, but on human hearts. I know we need a standard to keep from shifting our beliefs, but I would think that standard would be the living God. Isn't that Christ's whole point? If we derive full authority from a book, it's just Judaism all over again.

Well I guess it comes down to "does one believe that the book is a physical record of the word of God or does he not?" (My position is 2 Timothy 3:16-17)
So if the book is from God, then I don't see a problem with deriving full authority from the book, and I don't see it being analogous with Judaism. The problem with Judaism was that they made the word of God of none effect by their man made traditions.

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Obviously, the word should bring the reader closer to God (if not, then the fault is with the reader, not the word itself), but my question would be, if the word isn't good enough, then what is? Where would you derive your authority from if not from the word of God?

4.) The Bible, even if inerrant, is not 100% clear, and contains many seeming contradictions. The sermon on the mount repeatedly states that various sins disqualify a soul from heaven, yet the Calvinist philosophy based on John 3:16 insists that salvation is exclusively a question of faith. This is extremely critical, and possibly the most divisive issue in the church, and yet people often just pick one, ignore the other, and still walk around saying "inerrant".

5.) The seeming contradictions can be reconciled, but it takes a scholar or theologian to do it; the average person is thus shunned from God's word, or has to take the word of a theologian. This goes against the teaching that the faith is for all nations and races, unless we are only talking about the educated class of each nation.

Few thoughts here.
Christian gospel is very simple, even for an average person:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Very simple. This is the milk.
Now there is the meat, where it takes more studying to understand.
I think we can all agree that nobody can just pick up the Bible, read it through once, and understand every point, teachings, and symbols and nuances that the word has to offer. Not even an entire lifetime would be long enough for that.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

If one does not rightly divide the word of truth, then he/she will be left with contradictions and heresies. Thus why one needs to study, comparing scripture with scripture. Now, there are parts of the Bible where things are unclear. Some might be because of our limitation in thinking, others might be because the time is not yet. But from personal experience so far in my life, none of those parts were detrimental or hindrance to my walk in the faith.

Remember when Jesus, after he was resurrected, basically gave the two a bible study in Luke? or when he rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees and Scribes of erring the scripture? Just because man doesn't understand it right now doesn't mean the word is flawed. Just my thoughts. God Bless

[Wissing]

First, I'll say this: thank you very much for taking the time to post a reply. In the following, I hope not to sound too argumentative, but I will counter some of your points. My goal is not to "win", but to track down every source of logical unrest within me, so that I can move forward with a genuine set of beliefs that I can use to help bring Christ's righteousness to whoever I encounter.

I'll also preface this with a disclaimer: I've learned that, on this site, I pretty much have to laboriously lay down supporting evidence like it's my job, even to the point of tedium, lest all the "freethinkers"(TM) out there take the moral high ground and have a field day. Sorry this is long!

Well I guess it comes down to "does one believe that the book is a physical record of the word of God or does he not?" (My position is 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I think that is the question it comes down to, indeed.

According to John 1:1-17 (NET), the "Word" refers not to writing, but in fact to something that was "with God in the beginning", something that "became flesh and took up residence among us", something that is described in contrast to law, for "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ".

On 2 Timothy 3:16-17: I agree that "scripture" is indeed "useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness" (that's the wording of the NET), but the idea that Paul was in fact referring to the modern Bible is another argument entirely. The previous verses suggest he is only talking about writings that already existed:

You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I hardly expect Timothy had studied Paul's letters, or the not-yet-written Gospels, "from infancy".

I will admit that much of the old testament does in fact at least claim to be spoken by God. For instance, Jeremiah depicts a conversation between himself and God, in Jeremiah 1. The same happens throughout the prophets. The ten commandments are the most overt example of God speaking directly to a person, as Moses walked down the mountain with engraved stones in his hands.

However, I contest that "inspired" actually implies inerrancy (or instead of "inspired", the "God-breathed" translation), in the verse in Timothy. Note that, in Genesis 1, God breathed the life into Adam's nostrils - yet that doesn't make Adam inerrant. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (which I have been told, by a seminary scholar I respect, is a proper description of what most churches mean when they say 'inerrant') claims in the first line of the "Exposition" section,

Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of the Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our summary statement and articles are drawn.

Which is fine with me! I do interpret the Bible in the context of its broader teachings. But when people hear words like "perfect" and "inerrant", they do not think about "greater context". We take verses like John 3:16, and create entire sects that say "works have no impact on salvation - saved by faith alone... oh, and you have to be baptized by full immersion or it doesn't count". However, Matthew 7:21-23 clearly states that only those who "do the will of my Father in heaven" will enter into the kingdom of heaven - and not "lawbreakers". Which means the Calvinists and the Arminians are both equally Biblical, though they make conflicting statements about salvation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/arminianism.htm#

So I think it is very possible that God, being perfect, can inspire messages that are not in fact perfect. Why would he? I don't know - why would he make man imperfect? Why would he allow evil? Perhaps he has a good reason for giving us bread crumbs instead of a book of perfection.

Now then, what do we do? As you said,

if the word isn't good enough, then what is? Where would you derive your authority from if not from the word of God?

For that I turn to 2 Corinthians 3:3

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
-NIV

I think I agree with some of the commentary here, by Matthew Henry (scroll down a bit to find it):
http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/3-3.htm

The Bible is good. It is useful. Even though Paul was not referring to the New Testament in his statement in 2 Timothy, I even agree that we can apply many of his words there to the NT. But none of it is perfect. I'm not saying it's a lie. But it's "proper context" is not modern. We can glean valuable information about our past from the Bible, but we can't take it word for word. I believe that the Holy Spirit is alive and well (lest Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 cause me eternal unrest), and that in fact it is the living God, not necessarily the Bible, that directs our moral compass today. This is important, because God is not a computer program - in fact, I think he's rather autonomous. He's allowed to change direction when the time is right. God has a plan - he's allowed to move forward on that plan. We have a teacher because the textbook goes out of date after awhile.

[Chabalala]

Well, a couple of thoughts here.


1. I think it's important that we distinguish word from Word.
Word (capital W) is a title of Jesus Christ, one of many.
word (lower case w) is the written word of God, scripture.

2. I agree that scripture should be taken in context. There are many types of context: cultural, historical, topic at hand, etc.

Ex: When God told Noah to go build an ark, he was giving a command to Noah, not you or me or Paul, etc.

However, I believe some scripture trandscends context, meaning that it is same now as it was when it was said and it will be in the future.
I believe thats what Jesus meant when he said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. "

I agree that not everything in the Bible is for us to follow (like the Noah example), but it never said it was.
Romans 15:4 says
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

I'm interest to know what you mean by "the textbook goes out of date after a while" God Bless

[puddleglum]

The Bible, even if inerrant, is not 100% clear, and contains many seeming contradictions.

God doesn't always do things the way we think he should. One point we need to always keep in mind is that God's knowledge is infinite and ours isn't. Many of the things he does seem foolish simply because we don't have the knowledge or intelligence to understand him. Here is one example of an apparent contradiction:

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... -choice-2/

The sermon on the mount repeatedly states that various sins disqualify a soul from heaven, yet the Calvinist philosophy based on John 3:16 insists that salvation is exclusively a question of faith.

There is no contradiction here. God will allow absolutely no sin in heaven and all of us have sinned. Jesus died to atone for our sins and if we put our faith in him all our sins are removed and God views us as if we had never sinned.

The seeming contradictions can be reconciled, but it takes a scholar or theologian to do it; the average person is thus shunned from God's word, or has to take the word of a theologian.

No, it doesn't. I am not a scholar or theologian but I have found that if I study the Bible enough I can usually find the solution to supposed contradictions.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, if nothing else, proves that the word "inerrant" requires a full page report to be properly understood.

They might have taken a page to explain inerrancy but the word is easily understood by those who want to understand it. They probably needed more space because they were trying to convince those who simply don't want to believe that the Bible is inerrant.

For one example, evangelism. It's getting to the point where I just don't see a need for marketing.

There are still millions of people who haven't heard the message of salvation.

Then there's always the whole "homosexuality" issue... for which I find myself sitting on the fence... don't even wanna go there.

Here is an excellent place to learn about this subject:

http://truefreedomtrust.co.uk/

What else... divorce! I know plenty of people who both A) hold the Bible to be authoritative, and B) prioritize personal happiness above staying married.

This simply show that some people are hypocrites and don't practice what they profess to believe. It has no bearing on whether or not the Bible is inerrant.

And, of course, charity... on the one hand, we have "teach a man to fish", which makes sense in practical everyday life; on the other hand, the Bible seems to convey a tone of sacrificial giving - regardless of whether the recipients have earned it (i.e. Jesus' self-sacrifice, a gift to undeserving humanity).

We should help people learn the skills to meed there needs whenever this is possible. There are some needs, such as forgiveness of sin, that they simply can't meet through their own efforts. They can only be forgiven because Jesus chose to sacrifice himself for them.

On 2 Timothy 3:16-17: I agree that "scripture" is indeed "useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness" (that's the wording of the NET), but the idea that Paul was in fact referring to the modern Bible is another argument entirely. The previous verses suggest he is only talking about writings that already existed:
Quote:
You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I hardly expect Timothy had studied Paul's letters, or the not-yet-written Gospels, "from infancy".

In this context Paul is speaking about the Old Testament.

Why would he allow evil? Perhaps he has a good reason for giving us bread crumbs instead of a book of perfection.

We have no way of knowing why God does anything. He has given us a book of perfection. The reason we only get bread crumbs from it is that we are imperfect and can't understand all of it. A time is coming when we our understanding will be perfect.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
(1 Corinthians 13:12 ESV) ESV