Why did God need semiliterate and obviously unworldly tribesmen to convey his words? You’d think an infinite being could have dispensed with all of that, and just have presented the complete work in a language that would be universally and forever understandable to all people. You don’t think he was too limited to do that, was he?

Are we not supposed to be concerned with the obvious errors and contradictions? What does “the Word” really mean? It seems rather subjective, given the vigorous disagreements among devout inerrants.

And then there was The Council of Nicaea, Constantine, and all the politics. What was the point? To sow confusion?

I do believe the Word (not text) of God in inerrant, meaning without fault, fully realizing the Lords purpose for warning (interpretations) of changing a dot or tittle. It is a waste of time to list the textual errors evident.

Yet it is not the text or bible that truth is found and obtained, but by the HS assuring the word will be spiritually discerned. This certainly would worry the Teacher for the immature that may be misled having mind yet un-renewed as the Lord commands necessary.

Mincing no words with great intellect not possessed, am thankful that even those most common may in time change from wisdon and knowledge of this world into the wisdom and knowledge of God, having the mind of the Lord serving as He sees fit.

Inerrancy: The ‘Fifty Years War’ and Counting –

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100818/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-the-fifty-years-warand-counting/index.html

CMP says:

“This then produces a sort of ”hermeneutic of inerrancy” where the preservation of inerrancy becomes the goal rather than the correct interpretation of Scripture.”

But are you, by that statement, assuming that interpretation overrides inerrancy as well? I think both have to be in correct balance to present a proper hermeneutic for the understanding of scripture.

Otherwise we would be saying, it seems to me, that theological exegesis itself reigns supreme nowadays, which is the other very dangerous extreme of what you are talking about. This is also a nuance that I feel needs to be seriously addressed in the present day theological community.

[...] first post in the series on inerrancy references a previous post where Michael Patton provides two different definitions for inerrancy.  [...]

Jugulum -

But then, Jesus’ humanity doesn’t imply that he ever mistakenly taught something. And human involvement in the writing of Scripture doesn’t have to affect the principle: However confident I am that the Bible teaches X, I should be equally confident that X is true.

But what about this: Jesus in his incarnation, in his 100% complete humanity still had morning breath, still passed gas, still had body odor, maybe tripped over a large root of a tree sticking out, still didn’t make a 100 A+ on his mathematics exam, etc. He was still the perfect Son of God, but that statement has to be qualified, right? I don’t think Jesus’ perfection kept him from the common realities of what it meant to be a human being. But I know he did not speak falsehood, did not deceive, spoke truth, only did what he saw the Father doing, never sinning against his Father or humanity, etc.

So, with Scripture, in the reality that it also comes completely from man (as well as completely from God), we must allow for the ‘morning breath’, the ‘body odor’, etc, etc.

Again, I believe Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) and I believe God’s words directly from Him are pure and perfect (Ps 12:6). But does ‘God-breathed’ mean that it can’t allow for detail mistakes, a little body odor of humanity, if you will, since it is written by humans. And cannot Scripture be recognised as not all being direct utterance from God. I’m not talking about dictation where the writer’s eyes rolled back in their head, they foamed at the mouth, and then wrote. I think we all realise that isn’t what happened (though I believe a lot of it was direct communication from God).

I’m talking about Paul telling Timothy to bring his cloak, take a little wine if he is not well, tell one church to deal with a situation in an exact way but not tell another to deal with it in that same way since such words were only wise for one context and not the other. But Paul was ‘writing the word of God’, so shouldn’t the Romans deal with their problem exactly the way Paul told the Corinthians to deal with it? I mean, if it was God’s direct words by the ‘inspired’ apostle, doesn’t it mean that we all obey exactly what it says? Or why could two Gospel writers, inspired by the same God, report that there was one demoniac and another report there was two. It’s not a simple detail to miss right, especially for guys recording things theopneustos?

Anyways, maybe this is chasing rabbit trails. Again, I love Scripture. I adore the One who breathed it out through the humans that we are. But I am wondering if this ‘inerrancy’ thing in the more modernistic idea that we have developed is what God meant when He meant a God-breathed Scripture through humans.

Truth Unites -

That was a BIG mistake on my part in that comment. It meant to say, ‘I would NOT classify myself as an errantist.’

Oops, should have read my comment over carefully before hitting the button.

I don’t have a problem with the Chicago Statement or of inerrancy. But I am asking questions beyond the typical textbook evangelical answers that we usually give, probably like you too ask those questions.

Anyways, wanted to clear up that I would never classify myself as an errantist. But my questions might lead me to qualify what I mean by the word inerrancy, as you might too.

Thanks

ScottL: “I don’t know if your comment was to me or not, but I would classify myself as an ‘errantist’. I am simply an evangelical asking questions. An evangelical who loves the Scriptures and asking questions.”

#1. Inerrantists also ask questions.

#2. Eg., “What is it about the Doctrine of Inerrancy (ie., the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) that causes errantists to gnash their teeth and keep pushing that the Bible is errant?”

Dave Z: “But I would not call myself an errantist – I don’t know if there is error and I don’t worry about it – God ensures his message gets through.”

I don’t think an errantist would call you an errantist either.

The fact that the earth is not flat and the Heavens are not a dome, is an error.

That the Scriptures declare two different occassions when the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples surely seems contradictory.

Does it matter? No it doesn’t. Not to those that walk by faith and not by sight.

Humans are fallible. God uses humans for His purposes.

People are either demon possessed, or they are not.

I’m not sure if we are qualified to know the difference between a mental illness and a possession by demons.

But we are able to proclaim a perfect God who uses the finite for His infinite purposes.

Steve, how would you feel about these:

The Bible describes people as being demon possessed. We now know that they were just schizophrenic. The point is the Jesus healed them.

Then…

The Bible says that Jesus healed people. We now know that they were medical anomalies. The point is that they were healed.

I hate slippery slope arguments, but they sometimes do have their place to make a point.

How does the line of argumentation that you just used differ from the ones that I used?