a question in all respect looking for a serious answer…

is there indication that the reference to scripture is the old testament and new testament that we’ve come to label the Bible considering any words about scripture in the early years of Christ’s recent resurrection were pre-Nicean Council?

I think God’s word (from his mouth) is infallible…

I believe Christ (as logos) is infallible…

the books and letters selected to be a part of the Bible we have come to know that are not quotations of God’s promises or words I have a hard time seeing as completely infallible.

just wondering how scripture came to mean post-Nicean Bible… it had to in church history somewhere… and why that choice was made…

with very little knowledge of church history and the utmost respect for a soon-to-be neighbor,
Art

Art my man,

I have many of the same questions. When we think about it, it hard to imagine that the Bible as we know it had its final bringing together by a council in the 4th century. I often wonder the purpose of 3 John or some of the material in Song of Songs. But I suppose we are all faced with the conundrum that no matter what, we have never seen or heard God. Even if we had, who would believe us. The very nature of revelation seems to beg the epistemological question. So, I’ve resigned myself to the understanding that God has been working in the Church, and did in the early centuries, to be able to spot His word through the Spirit. Just my humble resignation from a neighbor-to-come. Very glad to see your response friend.

First off, sorry I am so late in responding to this post. As I mentioned before, I only caught wind of the post this afternoon. Second, no worries about coming off as harsh or anything, I didn’t take it that way. I know there is much love here man. I will do my best here to be as succinct as possible, as long-winded comments can be tiring and often leave far too many ideas of which to respond to. So, with that said, I’ll give it a shot.

1) Christ did say explicitly say he was the Son of God. “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)

2) The main issue I have with the concept of “inerrancy” is not that I wish to say the Bible has errors, but that “inerrancy” allows believers to impose a set of standards upon the Bible I don’t think were initially part of it’s intended design. It is a poor term.

Inerrancy is what forces Hank Hanegraffe into a corner when someone calls the “Bible Answer Man” program, to debate why II Chronicles 9:25 numbers Solomon’s horse stalls at forty thousand, when I Kings 4:26 declares them only to have had four thousand. Similar it is with some contesting genealogies throughout the Scriptures, and meaningless debates on whether or not Creation was formed in a literal 6 days. This, at best, is a waste of our time.

What I find almost more damaging is that the notion of inerrancy sets up a false principle, namely, that if the Bible is found in error at only one point, then the whole thing can be effectively found patently false. This is faulty logic at best, but these are the set of standards inerrancy has imposed upon the otherwise, God-breathed and trustworthiness of God’s Word.

3) I didn’t find anywhere throughout your citations of the Scriptures, any notion of the Bible declaring itself as “without error” with the exception of Psalm 19. In this case with “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul;” the psalmist (David) is using poetry to declare the splendor of God. How does one call poetry “without error?” Is all the poetry throughout the Bible to be regarded as “without error”? What then of the Lover in the Song of Solomon who declares “Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn” or even the Psalmist who says, “…happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us–he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rock“? Can these be regarding as “without error”?

Exegetically speaking, I don’t think David was as much trying to make a case for the inerrancy of the Scriptures, as he was making a case for the perfection and splendor of the Lord, and all the goodness which flows from Him. I am no Hebrew scholar either, so I am totally willing to be in error here. All this said, I believe the truth of every passage you cited. I believe The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. I do. But I am for a better usage of terms.

4) Lastly, you said, “God inspired holy men, prophets, and apostles to write the sacred Text in various literary forms . . . in its original autograph, accurately portraying the heart of God.” As it is apparent that we do not have the texts in their original autograph, does this mean you are saying the texts we do have then are not as accurate as the original, and thus are in error? If so, I think we are agreed on the “infallibility” issue.

Bottom line for james – I think “infallible” and “inerrant” are poor choices of terms. It is an issue I am unwilling to divide over, however. Christ is risen, sins are forgiven. Alleluia

Much love man. *raises virtual pint*

Thanks for such a well thought-out response. I think English-speaking evangelicals have clung to these terms because they do mean to affirm that the Bible is historically accurate and logically coherent. Of course we all have our questions. I, for one, do not understand what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor.10:8 when he says that 23,000 fell in one day. In Numbers 25:9 it clearly says that 24,000 were killed. When you look at the commentaries and journal articles, there is no good explanation for this. Did Paul just misquote? I might just be willing to concede that. I will say, though, that if he is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? Where do we drawn the line? Is modern science and archaelogy going to correct all our inaccuracies? You know what I mean? It is a slippery slope (as much as I hate that argument) in many ways. History and theology are woven together in the Scriptures, and when we start to say one is erroneous in certain aspects, the other logically follows. I don’t think that is faulty logic; we are talking about trustworthiness. I know that just because one person may be inaccurate on one point, it doesn’t mean everything they have said is inaccurate. I would agree with you that is faulty logic, unfortunately it works in courtrooms all the time. My point is just that what epistemological standard are we using.

I will say in response to some of your points,

1. Jesus implied that he was God but he never came out and said. He all but said it.

2. Hank Hanegraffe doesn’t know Greek or Hebrew and he makes himself look like an idiot all the time. Since he doesn’t know the languages, he doesn’t know much about textual variants and the whole process of texual criticism. I would say his ignorance is more of a problem than his affirming of inerrancy, hovever the two may be linked. I don’t think our debates about a literal 6 day creation are meanliness. I think the way the debates are done are more damaging, since it becomes a dogma issue. But healthy debate about this with both christians and non-christians is good, if it is done the right way. And when in doubt, are we going to doubt the text.

3. By calling Scripture inerrant it does not imply that the poetry itself is the best Hebrew poetry available, but the NT quotes the Psalms with the introductory formula “the Spirit said…”. Nor does it mean that Paul had the best way of writing letters, it simply means that the truth communicated is the inerrant. We should talk about the whole ipsisima verba and ipsisima vox debate.

4. I would say that to the degree the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have reflect the originals, is to the degree that they are “inspired”.

Good words my friends. *raise of proverbial pint*

Hey Bros,
Great interactions with each other and with Scripture. I love being a part of this community! I’m taking a break from trying to graduate right now and wished I could join in with some serious reflection. No reflection. Like the “proverbial pint” raise!

Here’s one to ya!

Josh

Thanks for your thoughts brother. Also glad you and Kalila dropped by yesterday. Made my day, man.

hey gang…great discussion. i, for one, would like to see how you play out the trustworthiness of the bible (or lack thereof) in regards to your understanding of the nature and character of God, man, grace, faith and (true) good works. i know its a big request. i ask because many seem to see Christianity mainly addressing how we are supposed to live (like Jesus) while dimly seeing the mountain of truth that gives context to living like Christ, namely all that is involved in the phrase “Christ, who loved me and gave Himself for me”. (I have found Luther on Galatians insightful on this verse)
on the other hand, others see dimly the impact that the grace of God in Christ - the good news of the gospel, has upon the life of one measley creature who stands before His Maker…his majestic-in-every-sort-of-way Maker! Is not the converted soul re-wired for God, His ways and kingdom?
the “Doc”, Martyn Lloyd-Jones consistently addressed two foundational questions:
1. what is a Christian?
2. How does a person become a Christian?
so, how does your view of the bible speak to these issues?

so much to fellowship over…so little time…
i too raise a pint!
danny

If you are looking for a school that believes in the Bible as originally written without error, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (or Boyce colelge) is a good choice or Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Trinity International). I would caution anyone against Fuller, Baylor (Truett), or Wheaton because the scholarly community recognizes that in the publications by professors of these schools overall they deny that scripture is accurate in the originals in geography, history, science, etc. This puts on display their choice to reject word for word acceptance of the originals and only to accept them in areas of salvation. Shame on you Fuller et al for selling out your commitment to all of scipture for the sound of men clapping.

um . . . okay.