Year Published
2003
Authors
Topics
Synopsis
Overall Rating
Final Thoughts
Year Published
2003
Authors
Topics
Synopsis
Final Thoughts
Overall Rating
full inerrancy if one doesn’t believe in complete inerrancy one doe snot believe in authority, and therefore any contradictions are only apparent
inerrancy does not fit ancient authors always mythicized events so we cannot expect them to be 100% accurate
only in the US only Christians within the US are concerned with inerrancy; elsewhere it’s infallibility
meaning, truth, and interpretation the truth of today is not always the truth of tomorrow
missional plurality there are many dimensions of truth as well as the Bible that cannot be put into a simple inerrancy paradigm
the good
The author’s are undoubtedly devoted to their positions. And I admire them for that. There’s a level of intellectuality that proceeds from each of them that shows they know what they’re talking about.
I appreciated the emphasis of some of the later authors that many parts of the Bible are allowed to be mythicized (even by inerrantists) and some are not. Dissonance like that does not bode well for a belief. Or that we really only care about inerrancy within the US. Or that statement-truths aren’t always universal (more on that later.)
the bad
Because of the intellectual nature of the discussion, and the education of the contributors, this book is not easy to read. Also, some of the beliefs seemed to require inerrancy to be in place while they argued for inerrancy which did not make much sense at all.When discussing full inerrancy, they state that only the original manuscripts are 100% inerrant, but we don’t have those. So we can’t say that the modern Bible is inerrant. They also state that inerrancy has been part of the Christian tradition forever, when it hasn’t. And lastly, they tried to argue that modern science is too new and that man’s logic isn’t always accurate. Which is true, however, we’re relying on our own logic to understand and define inerrancy. So how is it accurate with this but not with science?
So where do I stand? All of them are right, in some way. This may seem like a cop-out, but let me flesh it out. I’ve found something to be extremely true when dealing with difficult issues like this:
everyone is so rooted in their own belief that they refuse to evaluate it deeply and see not only its shortcomings, but the strengths of the others
When we look at them all, we see they all have merit and problems. For instance, I do not agree that the Bible is 100% inerrant. I do believe it is infallible. I find it very interesting that only Christians within the U.S. are so concerned with inerrancy.
I agree that some parts of the Bible may be mythicized while others actually happened. What we do know is that the authors of the Bible were trying to tell us something. We also know that in ancient times people weren’t concerned with minute details like we are today. So they may have said things that made sense to them in a non-factual way, but when we read them we get confused.
There’s also the issue of modern advances. We love to use them in technology. But when it comes to history we shun them. We can either accept new truths that science teaches us in all areas, or reject them in all. But we can’t pick and choose. That’s the same thing inerrantists accuse non-inerrantists of doing when deciding what is and isn’t 100% true.
The Bible never asserts that it is inerrant. It says that it’s God inspired, and useful in all things. But it never states it is 100% accurate in all descriptions. What we need to remember is that the Bible is revelation of God and his work. That can take many forms (poetry, prophetic works, potential fiction, gospels, letters), none of which prescribe to the same literary structure and cannot be held to the same standards of interpretation. So we can’t take a blanket statement of “the Bible is 100% accurate in all things” and apply it to the entire Bible because that’s not how the Bible was written.
The point is this- the Bible is infallible. It tells us with complete accuracy about God, what he has does, what he did do, and what he will do. There’s nothing about the work or nature of God that is wrong. BUT, it is not inerrant in the way it presents things. It said certain words to certain people in a way they would understand. That doesn’t mean they are the exact details of any situation. And they certainly aren’t always the exact way things should happen today (and we recognize that in many things).
Some argue that not holding inerrancy diminishes the view of the Bible. I argue the opposite. Holding inerrancy does not allow the Bible to be the revelation of God’s character that it claims to be. Rather, it diminishes the text to a bullet-point list of things that happened. I’d rather read a work that may not have all the little details right, but is expressive in how it shows me who God is, than a list of events exactly as they happened.
What do you think?
13 Responses
Hi. Came across your website and blog. Interesting comments on infallibility and inerrancy. I do hold to inerrancy. In my opinion, your attempt to reconcile the Bible being God’s revelation and God breathed, but it being it not being inerrant and does not damage His character, doesn’t hold up. Since God is holy, true, righteous, good,and perfect, among other things, there can be no mistake in His word. Plus, who determines what parts of the Bible is His word and what parts are not? Certain doctrines we don’t agree with and certain things the bible calls sin we don’t like are not God’s word, but if we do agree and like it, it is? And that changes for every professing Christian that does not hold to inerrancy? How then would you know that Jesus the Christ is indeed Lord and Savior? Have to get some sleep for now, will try to stay involved as time permits. Thanks!
*but it not being inerrant”
Sorry for not seeing the typos.
There is a difference between a “mistake in the Bible” and “things represented in a certain way” in the Bible.
For instance, we Paul tell women to keep their heads covered in church and not to speak or ask questions. Did require that for the Baptist churches that you pastored? Or did you require that people not associate with women when they were on their period? If not, why not? I would argue it is because you recognized the difference between something that is said for a certain time and something that is said for all time. There’s an underlying theme in both of those though-
1) to keep order in the church as it was not orderly. You’ll notice he didn’t mention it to every church because it wasn’t a problem with every church. Is this a mistake? No. It’s something that isn’t meant for all people at all times.
2) we honestly have no idea why the laws of Leviticus were what they were. The only thing we can say is that they were to keep God’s people holy as he is holy. And that’s what they did. But they’re not laws meant for all time. And we recognize that. Does that mean that we’re not made holy because we don’t follow them? No.
The point is this: just because something is said outright does mean it’s the facts. It means it is what would best be understood to people of the time. We allow Jesus to speak in parables, and Psalms to be poetic, but we can’t allow other parts of the Bible to follow the same pattern? To me it seems that people who hold to inerrancy are the ones who pick and choose which parts of literal and which are not based on whatever is most convenient to them, which is dangerous. Those who hold to infallibility hold it to the standards of history and literacy. We examine the historical and literary background of the text to find out what influenced it (because everything has an influence) and determine from there what it is means for people today.
Thanks for your reply Nick. It looks like you may only check for comments when you post again on Sundays?
You seem to have a lot of head knowledge about church history and bible themes etc., do you mind sharing with me your creed/statement of faith so I can have a general idea where you stand? I realize that you may have it spread out or in one place on your Blog, but I don’t know when I’ll get around to reading it all.
For example, to you hold to the Trinity, that Jesus was born of a virgin as conceived miraculously by the holy Spirit, is fully God and fully man, lived a perfect sinless life, and that salvation is only by grace through faith alone in Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection? Do you believe that there will be people saved apart from faith in Christ, or do you hold to the doctrine of inclusivism? Are you a member of or involved in a church somewhere (I’m sure you’re aware that there certain denominations and groups that allow gay membership and leadership (not that I agree :-))
So like other aspects of denying the inerrancy of holy writ, what other sins have you or others that agree with you determined was just for the time the bible was written? How about such sins as abortion, fornication, adultery, stealing, and drunkenness? Do think you would deny inerrancy if you were not gay (assuming you are gay). And for clarification, are you saying that the word of God in both the old and new testaments say that homosexuality was sin for then but not now, or do you also believe that some scripture that seemly deals with that sin (saying that way from your perspective) doesn’t say that it is sin?
By the way, as an fyi, I sadly have been involved in sodomy briefly in my youthful past. Also, there is a difference between acts God has declared immoral and sinful, verses customs and orderliness.
Thanks for your time, Nick.
You are correct in your last statement about there being a difference between things that God has declared immoral and sinful verses customs. And that’s where proper historical and literary analysis comes in. There are things that were customs of the time that are not today that we can’t hold to. There are also things that God said were sinful because of the customs of the time.
My creed in short: God is God. Jesus is Son. Holy Spirit proceeds from God. Man is a beautiful creation of God deceived by pride and curiosity into thinking they don’t need God. We have perfect free will to do as we choose, and must choose to accept God’s gift of grace for salvation. Once saved, always saved. There is no way to God but through Jesus, save for those who have not heard of him. Hell is not a physical place of eternal punishment, but the withdrawal of God from one’s life post death. Even then, all still have a chance to choose God in the end before being sent to lake of fire for annihilation. Jesus was fully man and fully God. He COULD have sinned, but he did not. I do not currently attend a church.
I would still deny inerrancy were I heterosexual because it is the most intellectual method to study the Bible. You cannot study the Bible without recognizing the difference between the literary genres, historical influence, and that which is figurative and that which is not. Doing so is intellectually inadequate and diminishes the importance of the Bible as a whole because you don’t allow it to be a collection of various things.
As for your questions about other sins, any form of killing is sin. Abortion. War. Homicide. All of it.
Fornication is a touchy topic that I will be doing an entire serious somewhat revolving around this month.
Adultery is a sin, as is stealing. Drunkness is another touchy one that I may discuss in more depth later.
Here is what the Bible CLEARLY states are sins: anything that diminishes another person. Anything that treats another human as less than the Image of God is a sin.
As far as homosexuality, there is very, very, VERY little in either testament about homosexuality. I’ve discussed it at length before, both from my own research: https://scarytino.com/romans-1-theabuseverses/ https://scarytino.com/why-we-need-to-stop-coming-out/ as well as summarizing other people’s books: https://scarytino.com/god-and-the-gay-christian/ and https://scarytino.com/bible-gender-sexuality/
What is important to note from those posts: any reference to homosexuality in the scriptures is not discussing homosexuality that we are discussing in today’s age. Monogamous, loving relationships were never downplayed (although they did exist, contrary to what some people believe). What IS addressed as sinful is homosexual temple prostitution (as well as hetero straight prostitution) and the abuse of younger boys by older men which was prevalent in Greek society. (as well as any form of humiliation by sexual means. Soldiers used to rape the men they captured to humiliate them.) Why? The first because it was a form of idol worship. The second because it is harmful to the boy and treats them as less than human. If two people are in a committed relationship (or even partake in consensual sex outside of said relationship), no matter their gender, God does not condemn that.
As far as your statement about being involved in sodomy in your past. I encourage you to research the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yes, I know sodomy has become a common term for sex between men, but it’s not what Sodom’s sin was. I also encourage you to rephrase it from “sadly had been involved.” You may not agree with homosexuality, but phrasing it as something that is regrettable is not a healthy way to approach yet. Yes, you may not think it was right, but living with regrets is not healthy. You did it. It’s in the past. You can’t change it. But it’s not something to view “sadly.” It made you who you are today in one way or another. From the other side, when discussing things with those who are homosexual, presenting it as something to be looked down upon (as “sadly” indicates) is not appropriate. It implies, whether you mean to or not, that you’re looking down on them for continuing to engage in the activity. How can you expect them to take your position and opinion positively if they feel like you’re attacking them or viewing them as less than? Viewing someone as less than is a sin because it diminishes their identity as being the Image of God.
I hope you better understand where I’m coming from now, and I hope you read the links I gave you and encourage you to better understand the historical aspects of sexuality that Christian commonly ignore today.
(And yes, I do tend to only look at comments on Sundays.)
Hi Nick. Just a quick reply, as it is getting late and I have been busy. I stand by my choice of words as it applies to me. Any Christian that understands the holiness of God and wretchedness of their sin will have regrets when they reflect on it. They do not stay regretful and have guilt because they have been born again and know that Christ has paid the penalty of all their sin and satisfied the holiness, justice and wrath of the Father on their behalf. Our society has become soft and a bunch of pansies so to speak, regarding political correctness and worldly tolerance, and I don’t fall for that stuff :-). People need to stop taking thinks personally. Worldly tolerance is a non sequitur because those pushing tolerance are usually being intolerant. There is a biblical tolerance, but that is usually rejected by the world and those in the LGBT Community.
The Hebrew word sed-ome’ itself does not have the meaning that is used for sodomy today, but Gen.19:5-13 clearly teaches the sin of homosexuality that was taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah before it’s destruction by the Lord, that the current meaning of sodomy comes from.
Lastly, I will be prayerfully considering how in-depth and how much longer I will be responding. I realize that you did not invite me here, and you may or may not welcome my comments on your Blog, but with your views on inerrancy, we do not have a common foundation and level playing field that may make it difficult to have a fruitful discussion. Whether you agree or not Nick, I do not hate you. But God’s word says that your lifestyle of homosexuality (1Cor.6:9-11 among others) is evidencing that you are not born again and saved. It is my hope and prayer that you will be regenerated and saved by the Lord through the gospel and grant you repentance. If you are one of His elect, it will happen sooner or later before you die. Take care.
Because you have already stated that you do not wish to further this discussion too much, I’m going to leave with a few parting words.
1- I urge you to get a better understanding of what salvation and sanctification are. There is no room for any regret and guilt within the life of the Christian because they know they’ve been made perfect. Anyone who tries to make one feel regretful or guilty is still operating under the assumption that works can add to or take away from your salvation.
2- The Bible does not state the homosexuality was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sex was used as a power tool in ancient societies to show dominion. Ezekiel 16:49 tells us outright the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and homosexuality is not one of them. Furthermore, the men were not exclusively homosexual because Lot offered his daughters.
3- I encourage you to check out these two previous blog posts I’ve made: https://scarytino.com/bible-gender-sexuality/ and https://scarytino.com/romans-1-theabuseverses/ to get a better understanding of how homosexuality fits into the Biblical context.
I wish you the best.
Nick:
Without making a big deal about the labels/terms, and to help me understand where you generally stand theologically and soteriologically, would you consider yourself Arminian or Calvinist? Even though I and others may think it inconsistent with rejection of inerrancy, do you hold to the 5 Solas of the Reformation?
I find merits and problems within both Calvinism and Arminianism. In my theological endeavors, I find the strengths of each “position” (as revealed in the Bible) and form a hybrid view. I do hold the five solas and am unsure how you see that as inconsistent with the rejection of inerrancy.
Not technically perhaps, but I don’t know of any reformers or puritans that held to the 5 Solas, especially Sola Scriptura that also rejected inerrancy. Of course that in of itself does not prove inerrancy, and I imagine there may have been a few out there. Just haven’t seen it in any of their writings from those such at Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, John Knox, John Bunyan, John Calvin, John Gill (mucho Johns huh?), George Whitefield, Martin Luther, and a host of others.
So, do you share the gospel? Are you concerned about the lost condition of those around us- neighbors, co-workers, etc? Where does the gospel fit into your rejection of inerrancy? How do you determine what is errant and inerrant in the Christian Bible? Do you hold to the doctrine of inclusivism? Inquiring mind wants to know :-). I hope you have a blest week this week. Remember the judgment seat of Christ, or do you believe that to be in error as well.
My apologies regarding the inclusivism question. I just scrolled up (should have done that first huh?) and re-read your short statement of faith. You do hold to inclusivism, and seem to deny a literal hell and eternal punishment in the lake of fire. You seem to hold to a few errant beliefs, some from cults, that fit your personal views and that can accommodate your homosexual beliefs and lifestyle. Till next time God willing.
I’m confused by your initial statement of saying you don’t wish to continue discussing further, but I will dialogue with you as long as you like.
I don’t think that any one person has everything figured out (which, if you’ll notice, is why I post most of my posts as “what if?”s. Anyone who says they have it all figured out is fooling themselves. I love dialogue which is ultimately what I host my blog for. To begin discussions on things, and to get people thinking.
As I’ve stated before: I *could* be wrong on my beliefs (and that is something that not enough Christians admit). However, the research that I’ve done has lead me to these beliefs, so I hold them and defend them as best I can.
To answer your questions:
1- I’m concerned about people who don’t know Jesus. However, treating them as a “lost soul” is not treating them as a person, but an object; a mission. Christ calls us to treat people like people. Get to know them. Show them him through love and acceptance. That’s what he does. If we are to call ourselves little Christs, not doing so is doing him a disservice. For that reason, I don’t stand on the street corner screaming the gospel; I don’t hand out tracts; I don’t tell everyone, at every possible opportunity that I’m a Christian and they need Christ or they’re going to hell. Why? Because as soon as you engage in a conversation with an end goal in mind (this one being getting them to ‘come to Christ’) you move from conversing as a human and becoming a salesman. I want people to see my love for them and Jesus and say, “that’s what I want to.” I don’t want to have to tell them they need it. I’m not a salesman, I’m a human. They aren’t customers. They’re humans as well.
2) Anything that doesn’t fit into the broad picture of the world- the entire Biblical witness, what we learn from the physical sciences, and what is culturally relative- is potentially errant. We need to have a holistic faith, taking everything into account. Otherwise, it’s just a partial faith. God gave us intelligence to use it and learn. Not doing so is dangerous.
3) I do not hold entirely to inclusivism. I do believe in natural revelation as spelled out in Romans. I do not believe that all religions are the same and worship the same God. But, you are right. I do not believe in a physical, literal hell. Why? Because that’s not what the Bible teaches when it is taken as a whole. Please see my post on that here: https://scarytino.com/on-hell/ You will find that most scriptures speak of either universalism or annihilationism, but not eternal damnation in a physical fire.
It’s hard to find well-informed people about this subject, however, you seem
like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks
Comments are closed.