A Website Devoted to Biblical Inerrancy

You can check it out here.  The folks behind it are all too familiar.  Nothing new.  Simply making sure that the line they have drawn on the theological sands remains there–visible for all to see.

But is it worth it?  Well, it depends on who you ask.  As for my position, I believe this matter of inerrancy has been imposed on Scripture.  It does not naturally arise from Scripture.  It’s adherents must first have put it there to see it there.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biblical Inerrancy, Inerrancy and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to A Website Devoted to Biblical Inerrancy

  1. nwroadrat says:

    The ancient Church had no such doctrine of inerrancy. If a Biblical author had an incomplete view of geography, history and specific events, those limitations come out in his writings. In fact, segments of the ancient Church at times felt right in adding to the text of Scripture. That doesn’t mean we start doing that. I just mention that to point out this new level of strident strictness is new.

  2. I don’t deny that inerrancy, like the Trinity, is logically produced from Scripture. It is based on the God who breathed out His Word, that He cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2). When we reject inerrancy, who becomes the judge for the Bible and who gets to determine which parts are true or not?

    • Jon Hughes says:

      That’s why we need the Holy Spirit, and to study the Bible in community with other believers. I realize that we will still disagree with one another on all sorts of issues – after all, even those who hold to inerrancy disagree with other inerrantists as to what the Bible is actually saying! But I believe that the standard (20th Century) tortuous defences of inerrancy will be increasingly seen as unsustainable and detrimental to spiritual growth and our witness to the outside world.

      Any inerrantist worth his salt will insist that women wear head-coverings in church. After all, the angels are watching, and there is no other practise in the churches of God. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we’re selective inerrantists 😉

      • But again John, to deny inerrancy places you or your group as the judge of what is true or not. To argue over views is not the same as saying this is true or this is not. For example, I am an Arminian and disagree with Calvinists over various doctrines yet we both hold to inerrancy (at least most of us do). Yet we agree fully that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible truth from God. We simply begin at different starting points and let Scripture speak.

    • TC Robinson says:

      Roy,
      Perhaps we need to explore what is involved in the writing of Scripture. Yes, God cannot lie and Scripture is God-breathed, but already there’s a flaw in your assumptions: 1. Assuming that both Numbers 23:19 and Titus 1:2 are about Scripture. They are not. 2. Assuming that we, in the 20th and 21st centuries, understand fully this matter of how Scripture was put together.

      Reformed theologian John Frame’s definition of Inerrancy is worth considering in all this:

      “Inerrancy, therefore, means that the Bible is true, not that it is maximally precise. To the extent that precision is necessary for truth, the Bible is sufficiently precise. But it does not always have the amount of precision that some readers demand of it. It has a level of precision sufficient for its own purposes, not for the purposes for which some readers might employ it…

      “When we say that the Bible is inerrant, we mean that the Bible makes good on its claims.”[3]

      • nwroadrat says:

        The trouble with Frame’s definition, is its one of many (btw I like his perspective). Many of the people on that website take inspiration to “verbal plenary inspiration” and/or MacArthur’s literalism of scripture. Verbal plenary inspiration take the Bible up into a cul-de-sac it can’t get out of. How they are spinning out of that cul-de-sac today is to claim without error (inerrant and infallible) in the original manuscripts.

      • Do you believe in inerrancy as a concept? In other words, do you believe the Bible is true, written by men inspired by the Spirit of God?

  3. Jon Hughes says:

    Amen, TC. I think the new generation will think differently.

  4. Jon Hughes says:

    nwroadrat,

    Yes, the original manuscripts fall-back position is a cop out. Why would God bother to inspire inerrant autographs that He didn’t preserve? Unless you supplement it with a doctrine of inerrantly copied and preserved manuscripts it is a frankly useless concept for all practical purposes, and hardly satisfying.

    The ‘KJV-only’ crowd are far more consistent here!

    • nwroadrat says:

      I’m sure TC will get my last rant and I’m pleased it made sense to someone else. I’m concerned “certainty” is being pushed into areas that are imprecise. I’m not channeling Rob Bell. Its coming from a Lutheran background, albeit ex-Lutheran.

      • TC Robinson says:

        Steve, you’re good to go (we encourage clean rants around here 😉 ). Regarding “without error” in the autographs, we really need to rethink what we consider “error.” Again, this is why I’m pointing you to Frame’s definition of inerrancy: “It does not have the level of precision that some readers demand of it.”

  5. Jon Hughes says:

    It’s good to rant. Thanks for the fellowship!

  6. TC Robinson says:

    “Do you believe in inerrancy as a concept? In other words, do you believe the Bible is true, written by men inspired by the Spirit of God?”

    Roy,
    I believe inerrancy as defined and defended by the likes of MacArthur is an artificial construct. First up, it asks the wrong questions of the biblical writers. Second, as a result, given the assumptions and agenda of its questioners, the world of the biblical writers is set aside. Third, we need to be careful that our categories are the same as the biblical writers. For example, does our understanding of “true” as it pertains to writing history, the same of the biblical writers?

  7. Jon Hughes says:

    TC,

    I’ve been reading G. K. Chesterton’s “Introduction to the Book of Job”, which is brief but packed full of wisdom; and is nicely related to this post. Chesterton was writing around a century ago, but remains as relevant as ever. Here’s an excerpt:

    “When you deal with any ancient artistic creation do not suppose that it is anything against it that it grew gradually. The Book of Job may have grown gradually just as Westminster Abbey grew gradually. But the people who made the old folk poetry, like the people who made Westminster Abbey, did not attach that importance to the actual date and the actual author, that importance which is entirely the creation of the most insane individualism of modern times… if other people did interpolate the passages, the thing did not create the same sense of shock as would be created by such proceedings in these individualistic times. The creation of the tribal epic was to some extent regarded as a tribal work, like the building of the tribal temple. Believe then, if you will, that the prologue of Job and the epilogue and the speech of Elihu are things inserted after the original work was composed. But do not suppose that such insertions have that obvious and spurious character which would belong to any insertions in a modern individualistic book… let us remember that there was more unity in those times in a hundred men than there is unity now in one man. Then a city was like one man. Now one man is like a city in civil war.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s