The Highway
Posted By: Tom Scripture Inherency - Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:30 AM
I just finished reading an article by someone who believes (as I do) that the Scriptures are inherent. Yet he also says that it is wrong to believe that this is an essential view of the faith.
You can read that article at: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/bl...ty-is-false-and-other-stupid-statements/
Although I certainly can understand where the author of the article is coming from, I find myself disagreeing with him on this point. In fact if I understand passages such as 2 Tim. 3:14-16, they actually claim Scripture to be inherent.
The author makes the statement that it is stupid to say that if the Bible is not inherent, then Christianity is false. Yet seeing how the Bible claims to be inherent, then if it isn’t then logically seeing how Christianity is based on God’s Word; wouldn’t this be a contradiction if indeed it wasn’t inherent?
Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:41 AM
Tom,

1. Methinks you mean INERRANT (without error, incapable of being wrong), rather than INHERENT (existing in something as a permanent, essential). You could say, however, that Scripture being divinely inspired is inherently inerrant. grin

2. Contrary to what this author writes, it is not "stupid to say that if the Bible is not [inerrant], then Christianity is false.", for if the Bible is 'God-breathed', then it must de facto be inerrant. And more salient to his statement, if the Bible is not inerrant, then it would be impossible to know truth and thus there could be no Christianity. Therefore, it is utterly brainless, illogical and even irrational to assert that it is 'stupid to say...'

This is just another expression of the modern fad to circumvent the biblical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration in order to escape its teachings and their application. In short, it is a form of idolatry... creating a god and a religion after their own imagination. igiveup
Posted By: John_C Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:14 PM
Jeff,

I agree with you totally on this, but would you speak on the doctrine of inerrancy coming late into the game. I think I read where inerrancy did not become a doctrine until early in the 20th century. That is not to say, as some claim, that earlier believers did not affirm inerrancy, but that it was probably assume.

Thanks for your input.
Posted By: Robin Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:36 PM
More recent battles in a few Protestant denominations aren't so much about the inerrancy of scripture, but about the sufficiency of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17).
Posted By: Tom Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:35 PM
Pilgrim
Thank you for pointing out my error. Kind of ironic, I actually thought of that angle of how we as humans can error, but for God to error would be making God less than perfect.7 giggle
Not sure I would go as far as you in saying that the author has created a God of his own imagination. Seeing he said that he believes in Scripture inerrancy. I just don't think he has thought through all the ramifications of the doctrine.
Though, that is only speculation on my part.

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:40 PM
My comment re: idolatry is the logical end of someone who rejects the biblical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. Why? Because if Scripture is errant i.e., it contains error, then it is virtually impossible to know truth. And, if truth is unknownable, then how can someone know for certain who God is? scratch1 Therefore, all that one is left with is speculation based upon the arbitrary receiving and rejecting of particular texts concerning the person and nature of God resulting in a god of one's own liking, aka: idolatry.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:54 PM
[b][/b]
Originally Posted by Robin
More recent battles in a few Protestant denominations aren't so much about the Inerrancy of scripture, but about the sufficiency of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17).
Can you give one or more examples? I am guessing that what you are suggesting; inerrancy vs. sufficiency amounts to the same thing, e.g., Peter Enns' heretical view of Scripture. For me personally, the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration isn't limited to just the question of inerrancy but includes sufficiency, which is how the framers of the WCF expressed it in Chapter I:

Quote
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:59 PM
Originally Posted by John_C
Jeff,

I agree with you totally on this, but would you speak on the doctrine of inerrancy coming late into the game. I think I read where inerrancy did not become a doctrine until early in the 20th century. That is not to say, as some claim, that earlier believers did not affirm inerrancy, but that it was probably assume.

Thanks for your input.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Augustine used the phrase "inerrant" back in the 4th century.

Here's a good article on that subject: The Truthfulness of Scripture - Inerrancy.
Posted By: Robin Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:57 PM
The whole cessationist argument is based on the sufficiency of scripture. Those who believe in other forms of special revelation - who also resist stoning when they prophecy falsely - would argue that since the Holy Spirit was to be given with dreams, visions, prophecies etc "in the last days (Joel 2:28)," that the "last" days couldn't have ended in the first century, or they wouldn't be last days.

Reformed folk - well, some of us, at least - argue that Joel's prophecy had to do with the last days of the old covenant, and that the signs were covenant signs of the close of that covenant...

Does that answer your question, Pilgrim? Not sure what you were asking.

Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:53 PM
Sure... just wanted some example(s) so I was clear on what you wrote. grin

From that perspective, true it is that some will at least give lipservice to inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy but charge that Scripture is insufficient in and of itself for NT Christians. Of course, we both know that Scripture itself testifies to its own complete sufficiency in all matters of faith and practice.

And quickly, I am one of those who hold that the events at Pentecost in Acts 2 and following were a fulfillment of OT prophesy that ushered in the new covenant with a new spirituality and a new univerality. But unlike many, being a 'soft' cessationist, I hold that all the ecstatic gifts were given temporarily for the main purpose of emphasizing that the new covenant Church was to be comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, i.e., to build the initial foundation upon the Rock after which they were no longer needed and thus taken away.
Posted By: Tom Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:57 AM
Pilgrim

I think I understand your point and agree with you.
Yet the author indicated that he does agree with verbal plenary inspiration (please correct me if I am wrong). Isn’t saying that the Scripture’s are inerrant, agreeing with verbal plenary inspiration?
If that is the case, I think he doesn't understand all the ramifications of the doctrine. Which is why he could say the things he did.
I just reread the article and there is a section in the article which I must strongly disagree with.
Quote
Most of you know that I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. I call my view “reasoned” inerrancy which does not suppose a particular wooden hermeneutic to be tied to it. (You can read more about it here).
Having said this, I believe that this doctrine, while important, is not the article upon which Christianity stands or falls. I believe that the Scriptures could contain error and the Christian faith remain essentially in tact. Why? Because Christianity is not built upon the inerrancy of Scripture, but the historical Advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ became man, lived a perfect life, died an atoning death, and rose on the third day not because the Scriptures inerrantly say that these events occurred, but because they did, in fact, occur. The truth is in the objectivity of the event, not the accuracy of the record of the event. The cause and effect must be put into proper place here. The historical event of the incarnation caused the recording of Scripture, Scripture was not the cause of the events. Again, Christianity is founded upon the Advent, not the inerrant record of the Advent.
The problem with his reasoning is although he has it correct these event indeed did occur. If indeed the Scriptures contain error, seeing how the Scriptures are God’s Word and God is perfect and seeing how the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture through human authors. If there was error in them, it would be saying that the Holy Spirit made mistakes.
Therefore, despite his claim that the accuracy of the recorded event isn’t what is important. It certainly is because it is God not man that wrote the recorded event.
It does puzzle me that he doesn’t see this, especially after saying that he believes in the doctrine of inerrancy.
Reading the article a little further on, he makes his argument to support Scripture the same way historians would support the writing of Josephus and Polybius. He says everyone agrees with their writings as “generally reliable, but not inerrant”. So error, in Scripture would prove the same thing.
My question is, how can someone who says they believe the Scriptures are inerrant, which has the connotation that the author is perfect; use this kind of reasoning? He is comparing apples to oranges.
Am I missing something here?

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Scripture Inerrancy - Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:11 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim

I think I understand your point and agree with you.
Yet the author indicated that he does agree with verbal plenary inspiration (please correct me if I am wrong). Isn’t saying that the Scripture’s are inerrant, agreeing with verbal plenary inspiration?
If that is the case, I think he doesn't understand all the ramifications of the doctrine. Which is why he could say the things he did.

Tom
The problem is his view is self-contradictory and illogical. He wants to affirm the physical coming of Christ into this world and that He made atonement for sin so that salvation was secured [I obviously have no idea what his doctrine of soteriology is so I don't want to accredit him with something he doesn't believe.]

[Linked Image] HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? The only source that reveals the details of who God is, e.g., Trinitarian, the Fall of mankind, the sending of the second person of the Trinity to take upon Himself human flesh, live a perfectly holy life according to the law of God, offer a vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross, be buried and then rise from the dead, etc., etc. is the BIBLE. If the Bible contains errors, regardless of the authorship of it, then there is no assurance that ANYTHING in the Bible is factual and therefore reliable. Either the Scriptures are the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God or they are nothing more than another book of random religious writings that mean nothing to anyone other than those who personally revere them as something special, aka: idolatry.

You cannot have a religion of truth if truth is allusive and only partial. If the Bible is errant, how does he know what is true and what is false? It's the identical problem the Liberals have always had when for whatever reason they reject the divine inspiration of Scripture, e.g., Rudolph Bultmann demythologized the Bible by denying supernaturalism, relegating anything that was supernatural, e.g., miracles, etc. as pure 'myth'. Karl Barth taught that the Bible is not the written divinely inspired Word of God, but it only contains the word of God which becomes the Word of God during a religious experience. There are countless views that deny all that Divine Inspiration entails, but they all have one thing in common... There is no way to determine absolute truth, and thus it falls upon each individual to determine what is true for them.

So, this man is lost in a sea of confusion in regard to the identity and nature of the Bible. And, you can be sure that the reason he has fabricated this view is that there he has a rejection of something Scripture teaches and/or an attempt to mix worldly philosophy with Christianity... or perhaps some other nonsensical reason. shrug

Once again, you cannot believe anything for certain if everything is subject to error. Believing falsehood serves no purpose other than to display one's total stupidity. wink
Posted By: Tom A response From the Author - Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:44 AM
As I sometimes do, I write a response to the article's author to tell them my concerns with their article.
I did just that in this particular case and just received a response and thought those who have participated on this thread would like to read what he said to me.

Quote
I think you've missed the point. You failed to see the main argument. Again, even if there were no scriptures at all Christianity would still be true. Think of the earliest church, they had no Scriptures at least only portions of the maybe. The testimony of the gospel was by word-of-mouth. Therefore, at this time even without the Scriptures Christianity was proclaimed them people believed based on the historical reality of the advent of Christ.

We need to keep from getting the cart before the horse. The Scriptures testify to the historic reality of the Gospel. Though I believe they are at are in errant, they don't even have to exist for Christianity to be true.

And remember, I historic event does not have to have an inerrant testimony for us to be obligated to believe it. Otherwise, there would be no historical reality outside of the testimony of scriptures that we are obligated to believe. This would include the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the discovery of America, and many many other historic events.

In the end, my argument is that people have no rights to leave the faith based upon their assumption that there may be an error or two in the scripture. And for us as Christians to give the impression that this is the case, distorts the Gospel by making the Scriptures the center of the gospel rather than the historic reality of what Christ did and who he was.

I hope that makes sense, my friend.

Tom

Posted By: Pilgrim Re: A response From the Author - Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:54 PM
So Tom, what do you think about his response? What is your analysis of what he wrote? scratchchin
Posted By: Tom Re: A response From the Author - Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:17 PM
laugh
Though I have not had a lot of time to think about it yet (that isn't always a good idea for me giggle ) I can't help but think that he is still missing the forest through the trees.
You cannot divorce the work of the Lord from the Scriptures.
I could use his own reasoning against him by saying it the opposite way he uses his analogy.
Rather than focus on the events themselves, if we take Scripture and all that it claims, particularly it claiming to be God breathed. If it contains error, it isn't God breathed because God is perfect and unlike us, He does not make mistakes.
So in that manner, not only the work of our Lord as shown by history; but also the very Scriptures that proclaim His work are of equal importance.
I would like to think about his mentioning the oral message before it was recorded a little more though.

Is that the way you would think about his response to me?

Tom
Posted By: Tom Re: A response From the Author - Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:59 AM
Still haven't had a lot of time to think about his response to me; however his answer makes me think that perhaps he might believe that if there are errors in Scripture it only means that the word "inspiration" doesn't mean there are no errors in Scripture. It would means that the message is inspired, but not the human author's errors.
In other words God inspired the message, but not every jot and title.

Not sure if that is what he believes, but I am trying to understand his reasoning.

Posted By: Tom Must Be Using the Wrong Bait - Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:20 AM
No more bites on this topic?
smile
Posted By: Robin Re: Must Be Using the Wrong Bait - Tue Sep 09, 2014 9:50 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
No more bites on this topic?
smile

You wrote that you're trying to understand what the author means.

As foggy as his reply seems, it's still obvious that he wants his Christianity "cafeteria style." He'd rather just pick and choose to believe whatever he wishes and disregard the rest. If the scriptures are inerrant, perspicuous, and binding upon all men in all times and places, then that frustrates his purpose.

It's the same lie that the serpent used in the garden: "Did God really say ... ?"

I wouldn't waste my time with this guy's self-serving speculations.

Your use of the word "bait" is ironic, bro, since you're the one that bit.

-Robin


Posted By: Pilgrim Re: A response From the Author - Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:14 PM
1. Without an INFALLIBLE and INERRANT record of the historical events, one cannot know with any certainty that they actually occurred, never mind being able to know what they mean, etc.

2. The life and death of Christ is but a part of the whole, albeit a major part. Without a knowledge of creation, the Fall, the history of redemption (Covenant of Grace), all the prophesies that preceded and foretold of the coming of the Redeemer, etc., etc., the appearance and execution of a man named Jesus has no special significance in and of itself. And if the biblical record; the OT, is not inerrant, then again, truth is unobtainable. You are left with nothing more than an arbitrary 'picking & choosing' of what you want to believe is true... aka: relativity and no absolutes.

3. The argument for the spread of the gospel via oral transmission is inadequate at best. We read in Scripture that there were many false prophets and false teachers going around during the time of the Apostles, preaching and teaching a false gospel. So, how can one know that what the Apostles taught was any less fallible and errant than what anyone else was proclaiming at that time? And how do you know what was taught orally? The Roman State Church makes a claim that 'oral tradition' is infallible, but there is no record of what was said apart from Scripture, which is rather amusing.

4. The Bible claims to be the 'God-breathed' written Word of God. If there are errors contained in the original manuscripts, then one is forced to logically conclude that either God made a 'mistake', God lied, or God could not control what the writers actually wrote, thus making God a deceiver... all of which results in a book that is no more reliable than any other book written by fallen men.

5. Lastly, although much more could be said on this matter, the question needs to be asked, "IF the Bible is not inerrant, how does one determine what is true and factual and what is false?" One's eternal destiny depends upon believing and living what is right and true. Personally, I'll let Jesus' understanding of Scripture determine that, for He said,

Quote
John 17:1-8,12,17 (ASV) These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word. Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received [them], and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me... While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled... Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.
Contrary to the man-centered ditty often heard quoted in Fundamentalist circles, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That does it." The child of God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit can only say, "The Bible says it. That does it. Therefore I believe it." grin
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: A response From the Author - Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:30 PM
Originally Posted by Tom
Still haven't had a lot of time to think about his response to me; however his answer makes me think that perhaps he might believe that if there are errors in Scripture it only means that the word "inspiration" doesn't mean there are no errors in Scripture. It would means that the message is inspired, but not the human author's errors.
In other words God inspired the message, but not every jot and title.

Not sure if that is what he believes, but I am trying to understand his reasoning.
Yes, that is just speculation on your part. However, IF he or anyone else holds that the "message" is inspired but not every "jot and title" is inspired, then they have a serious and insurmountable problem. For words are comprised of a combination of 'jots and tittles' and thus without them, there can be no words, and without words, there is no message. This is similar to those advocating 'Dynamic Equivalency' vs. 'Formal Equivalency', who say it's not the words that are important, but the meaning (message) which is important. But again, how can you have any understanding without the words themselves? Change one letter in one word and the entire meaning could be radically changed and even antithetical to the original.

And once again, repeating myself here from what I've written in response elsewhere in this thread, if there are errors in the Bible, how does one know what is an error and what is true? You either accept the Bible's own testimony concerning itself as being the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God, or you reject that claim and thus all you have is a compilation of the musings of various and diverse authors that have no special meaning nor authority. igiveup
Posted By: Tom Re: Must Be Using the Wrong Bait - Tue Sep 09, 2014 6:26 PM
Robin
Please forgive my bad attempt at interjecting a little humour into this thread.

Concerning my biting on this topic, why wouldn't I bite?
Considering that site is supposed to be Reformed and has helped me in the past.
To a lessor extent it is kind of like if Pilgrim made some statements like the article made.
Would I bite?
You bet I would. Regardless of the fact I feel a little ill equipped to match Pikgrim when it comes to knowledge of such matters.
Tom
Posted By: Tom Re: A response From the Author - Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:22 AM
Hi Pilgrim
A have made a rough draft of how I want ro respond to him. I want to do so without giving too much detail, therefore I have cut it to the bare bones.
Here is what I m thinking of saying.
Quote
Thank you for responding.
Theoretically speaking I agree with you. The Scriptures don’t make the person and work of Jesus less real.
However, we live in the real world, what we have is Scripture, which must not be viewed as merely a record of revelation, but as revelation itself, given its internal claims and evidences.
Can someone who claims that Jesus is Lord reject Jesus’ view of Scripture?
Jesus had a very high view of Scripture that does not allow for the rejection of its authority, authenticity, accuracy or complete trustworthiness. For someone to struggle with questions related to those things is one thing. To reject them outright while claiming to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ is quite another.
We divorce the person and work of Jesus from Scripture at our own peril.

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: A response From the Author - Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:09 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
Quote
Thank you for responding.
Theoretically speaking I agree with you. The Scriptures don’t make the person and work of Jesus less real.
However, we live in the real world, what we have is Scripture, which must not be viewed as merely a record of revelation, but as revelation itself, given its internal claims and evidences.
Can someone who claims that Jesus is Lord reject Jesus’ view of Scripture?
Jesus had a very high view of Scripture that does not allow for the rejection of its authority, authenticity, accuracy or complete trustworthiness. For someone to struggle with questions related to those things is one thing. To reject them outright while claiming to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ is quite another.
We divorce the person and work of Jesus from Scripture at our own peril.
1. Did this person actually say that the Scriptures do NOT make the person and work of Jesus less real? Perhaps I missed something in what you provided in the communication he sent to you. scratch1 I have a hard time imagining someone would actually suggest that reading the biblical account of Christ would diminish the reality of His actual earthly appearance and the redemptive work He accomplished. Can you explain why you would tell this man you agree with this statement? What was it that precipitated him making such a statement?

2. It is absolutely true that the LORD Christ had an extremely high view of Scripture. But so did the prophets and apostles. There are myriad instances where they used the phrase, "Thus saith the LORD...", referring to both the written Word that already existed and/or the verbal/Spirit communication given to them. But in your response you hit on most all the excellencies of Scripture EXCEPT the one thing which is contentious... INERRANCY!

3. Now, you are certainly free to respond to this individual in any manner you so choose. However, I would suggest to you that unless you undermine his premise by exposing its inherent errancy, you will be wasting both your time and his time. For the last time, for I believe it is not worth repeating again henceforth since I have made this clear several times already, that IF there are errors in Scripture, propositional and absolute truth cannot be known, for how can one discover the truth from error. Either one accepts the entirety of Scripture as God-breathed, guided by the Holy Spirit, working those chosen to record the revelation of God perfectly, and thus they possess the attributes of infallibility and inerrancy, or one must deem the Bible as simply the compilation of the writings of fallible men who wrote some worthwhile things that can improve one's life... aka: moralism.

4. The doctrine of the full divine inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and thus supreme authority of the Scriptures has been one of the foundational doctrines of the true Church since the beginning. It has come under attack in every age by those who have little or no desire to submit to ALL that it teaches. For example in more recent times, in 1924 the PCUSA issued the "The Auburn Affirmation" within which it states that it is imperative that for the sake of unity, not only within the PCUSA denomination itself, but unity among the other various denominations, that it is in error to state that the Bible has but one right and true interpretation. For, there are myriad views held by men that differ, some of which are antithetical to each other, yet it must be understood that tolerance and acceptance of these views is essential so as to preserved the oneness that exists between all who profess Christ as Lord... and even those who do not.

Now, how did it come to pass that such a statement could be made? As is typically true of all heresy, it was made possible because the doctrine of divine inspiration, which by the definition adopted by the true Church and as taught by the Scriptures themselves, inherently includes the attributes of infallibility and inerrancy. Men may differ on their interpretation, understanding and/or application of the Bible. But the Bible itself contains only ONE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. This is a truism which has even closer to home been rejected by the OPC and PCA denominations. The prevailing opinion is that one must accept a hermeneutic of Scripture that is multi-perspectival, i.e., that doctrine will differ depending upon the perspective of the reader. Thus, within the OPC and PCA, the various views on Genesis 1 are compatible; literal 24 hour 6-day creation, Framework theory, Gap Theory, etc.

The bottom line with all these errors is that they all share the view, which they invariably and categorically deny, that there is no absolute truth. Coming back to this foolish man you are communicating with, without a Scripture that is 100% infallible and inerrant, one cannot know anything as true. All that you have is relativity, which is what the world believes... "The only thing that is absolute is relativity" is the popular view. But that statement is inherently contradictory for it is proclaiming an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn't exist. hairout
Posted By: jerrybarry24 Re: A response From the Author - Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:57 PM
Fascinating discussion
Posted By: Tom Re: A response From the Author - Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:31 PM
Pilgrim
Perhaps I should reword it to say something like if we were talking theoretical, I would agree with you...
Concerning the word inerrant, although I did not mention that particular word, I think what I mentioned does cover it.

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: A response From the Author - Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:48 PM
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim
Perhaps I should reword it to say something like if we were talking theoretical, I would agree with you...
Concerning the word inerrant, although I did not mention that particular word, I think what I mentioned does cover it.
Here's my problem... I don't recall the author saying, "The Scriptures don’t make the person and work of Jesus less real.". IF he did say that, what exactly is the point he is trying to convey? It sounds like as if he is elevating the actual historic reality of Christ's living on earth over Scripture and even with the errors that Scripture has [implied], the truth of His existence isn't compromised. Now, IF that is what he is positing, would you then be in agreement with him?

And, re: you failing to mention the word "inerrant", since that is the main focus of your conversation with him and the point being disputed, it would behoove you, IMHO, to use the word without wavering. If for no other reason, it would keep the conversation on track.

Oh, and as I was pondering this subject, I was wondering since this man rejects the inerrancy of the Bible, yet believes one can know truth, would he then affirm that other religious sacred texts are no less a source of truth since they claim to have come from God yet they have obvious errors in them, for example, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, etc.? And IF he would deny the premise, then what is it about the Bible that sets it apart from any other 'sacred text'? scratchchin
Posted By: Tom Re: A response From the Author - Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:33 AM
Pilgrim 
You have said several times now that the writer of the article does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet the author himself stated that he does believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
The problem I see, is he sees the work of Christ and Scripture as something that can be separated.
Though a proper understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy should show otherwise, clearly he doesn't see it. Therefore he has an incomplete understanding of the doctrine and I am saying that giving him the benefit of the doubt,
I asked the question 
"Can someone who claims that Jesus is Lord reject Jesus' view of Scripture?" I think the answer is obvious and should be sufficient to show how important this matter is.
We can not separate the work of Jesus Christ and Scripture inerrancy. my reply in the hope that somehow it would show that you can not separate the work of Christ and inerrancy.
As I also stated he is treating the Bible as though it was just a record of revelation, yet it is revelation itself.
I thought I would let you know that not only have I been reading articles on the subject, the Highway is not the only place I have asked for help.
I am having an e-mail conversation with Dr. Thomas Ascoll of Founders Ministries and he thinks the man is talking in theoretical terms, otherwise he couldn't say what he did. But he also said rightly that we live in reality, not the theoretical. 

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: A response From the Author - Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:18 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim 
You have said several times now that the writer of the article does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet the author himself stated that he does believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Yes, he has said he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but then turns around and says the Bible could contain error. He also says that it is the historical events that Christianity is founded upon and not the Bible. But for the last time... Without the Bible, the divinely inspired, infallible, INERRANT, written Word of God, you could know nothing of those events. The premise is simple enough, is it not? Oral tradition wasn't sufficient to carry the truth and thus a WRITTEN record, originating from God was used according to the eternal foreordination of God Himself.

You are correct, that the Bible is not just a 'witness' to the revelation of God, it is THE revelation of God. The former was made popular by Karl Barth who taught that the Bible only contains the record of what men witnessed concerning Christ. The Bible isn't THE Word of God but rather it BECOMES the Word of God when one has an ethereal experience when reading it. Barth too held that it was the reality of the events that are true and reliable but not necessarily Scripture UNTIL an existential experience occurs. But notice what is similar between what this man believes and what Barth believed... they are both focusing upon a narrow 'event' in history; the incarnation, life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But one needs to ask about the majority of the rest of Scripture, e.g., the Old Testament which foreshadowed and foretold of the coming of Christ. Are they not just as divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant? Without the Old Testament, you couldn't have a New Testament, for the NT is estimated to be 65% OT quotes, allusions, etc.

This is what the LORD Christ said concerning the necessity of the written Word of God and the Old Testament in particular, which testified of Him and without which no one would or could believe on Him.

Quote
John 5:36-47 (ASV) But the witness which I have is greater than [that of] John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he sent, him ye believe not. Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. I receive not glory from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that [cometh] from the only God ye seek not? Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, [even] Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
And again,

Quote
Luke 24:13-27 (ASV) And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem. And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad. And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass. Moreover certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
And but one more from the inspired pen of Paul,

Quote
Romans 10:12-17 (ASV) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same [Lord] is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So belief [cometh] of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
And one must ask, What is it that is preached? It is the written Word of God, for without that divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant written Word, those historical events would never be known, never mind understood. But, if that written Word was errant, i.e., it contained error, it would be impossible to know if anything written about Christ was actually true, even though Christ is "the Truth", He being God of very God.

I'll leave you to your other sources and this confused individual with his theoretical musings. Is this person's premise not too similar to the old philosophical riddle, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?" The answer, of course, is "yes", it makes a sound (historical event). But if you never hear that sound, you will never know it fell. You either have to be there personally to see, hear, touch that which occurs or it will be practically non-existent UNLESS you have an absolutely true record of the event through which the Holy Spirit of God bears upon your mind, heart and soul. It is the Spirit who works in and through the written Word that is critical and thus the foundation of Christianity.

That's my [Linked Image]
Posted By: Tom Re: A response From the Author - Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:15 AM
Pilgrim
There is nothing in what you said that I would disagree with, except maybe the fact that I am not sure he meant what you think he meant when he said that (as you put it)
Quote
but then turns around and says the Bible could contain error.
I think we have both said enough about that aspect.
However, in the end you are correct that what matters is without the divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, those historical events would never be known, never mind understood.

Part of me is quite disappointed in the fact that the article is supposedly written on a Reformed site, which has been of some help for me in the past. Though I need to admit that just because a site is recommended to me by a respected Reformed Christian, that it necessarily is a Reformed site. Nor does it mean that just because a site carries some good articles; that it should not be read with care and discernment.

Tom
Posted By: Tom Something I read in my devotional - Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:44 AM
Hi
For those who have been following this thread this morning as I was reading the weekend addition of the devotional I read (Table Talk), there was an interview of Dr. Stephen Nichols, where part of the interview fit right in with the doctrine of inerrancy and I thought you might be interested in reading it.

Table Talk: Why are you concerned with defending the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture in this day and age?

Stephen Nichols: Defending inerrancy is necessary precisely because it is being challenged and even jettisoned by many who would claim to be evangelical. The doctrine of inerrancy reminds us that the Bible is God’s authoritative and trustworthy Word to us. My concern is with alternative views, and especially with the consequences of those alternatives. If you do not hold to inerrancy, what do you have? Essentially, you have limited inerrancy. That has the Bible submitting to us-to our judgment. That has it all topsy-turvy. The doctrine of Scripture is the domino, so to speak. If it falls in the wrong direction, the whole chain of dominoes falls in the wrong direction.
Posted By: chestnutmare Re: Something I read in my devotional - Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:57 AM
How many times and in how many ways has Pilgrim said this to you? Guess Stephen Nichols got it eh? When things come easy, it seems people rarely pay attention. Is that right? Read the thread Tom. It was explained in great detail to you. There are also the historic confessions and catechisms and lots of articles on this topic that you could and should read. for the good of your soul.
Posted By: chestnutmare Re: Something I read in my devotional - Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:45 AM
For your further edification, I would encourage you to read through the historic Creeds and Confessions. Here is what the Belgic has to say regarding the Bible.

Belgic Confession

Article 3: The Written Word of God

We confess that this Word of God did not come by the impulse of man, but that men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God, as the apostle Peter says (2 Pet 1:21). Thereafter, in His special care for us and our salvation, God commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing1 and He Himself wrote with His own finger the two tables of the law.2 Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.3

1 Ex 34:27; Ps 102:18; Rev 1:11, 19
2 Ex 31:18
32 Tim 3:16

http://the-highway.com/forum/ubbthr...le_3:_The_Written_Word_of.html#Post48977

Belgic Confession

Article 4: We include in the Holy Scripture the two volumes of the Old and New Testaments. They are canonical books with which there can be no quarrel at all. In the church of God the list is as follows:

In the Old Testament, the five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth; the two books of Samuel, and two of Kings; the two books of Chronicles, called Paralipomenon; the first book of Ezra; Nehemiah, Esther, Job; the Psalms of David; the three books of Solomon—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song; the four major prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel; and then the other twelve minor prophets—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

In the New Testament, the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen letters of Paul—to the Romans; the two letters to the Corinthians; to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians; the two letters to the Thessalonians; the two letters to Timothy; to Titus, Philemon, and to the Hebrews; the seven letters of the other apostles—one of James; two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John.

Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
We receive1 all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith.2 We believe without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as such, but especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God,3 and also because they contain the evidence thereof in themselves; for, even the blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled.4

11 Thes 2:13
2 2 Tim 3:16-17
3 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:6, 5:7
4Dt 18:21-22; 1 Kgs 22:28; Jer 28:9; Ezek 33:33

http://the-highway.com/forum/ubbthr...le_5:_The_Authority_of_Sc.html#Post48975

There is a commentary which follows each of the entries which you can read by following the supplied links or explore our section on Creeds and Confessions on the forum.
Posted By: Robin Re: Something I read in my devotional - Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:47 PM
It's like the kid in school who is always asking friends, "Would you please do my homework for me?"
Posted By: Tom Re: Something I read in my devotional - Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:22 PM
I have no idea why you made these comments to me. I could understand it if I was not reading the confessions, creeds etc... In fact, since I read the material that I started this thread with; I have done a lot of research, such as this thread, articles on the Highway etc...
Maybe I am giving the impression I am being lazy?
Robin made a statement that seemed to be insinuating that I was asking others to do my homework for me.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
I just recognize how valuable it is to get the opinions of my brothers and sisters here on the Highway. They actually help me to clarify my thoughts before I decide how I want to answer someone. That is if I decide to answer at all.
The reason why I included what Dr. Stephen Nichols said was because I thought others might like to read what he said. I believe his comments go right along with what has been said on this thread.
I realize that sometimes it might frustrate some people how I learn and I wish I could always comprehend everything I read right away. However, I have learned that in order to learn things I must not give up. This despite the fact I am going to be misunderstood in that process.
If you don't understand my meaning in my last few paragraphs, please ask me to clarify.
I have learned to love the Highway through the years; however, in order to do so I have had to grow a thick skin. In fact, I know personally of others who have come and gone, who will not grace the Highway again.
Though I believe it is their loss, I certainly understand where they are coming from.
Understand here, I am not saying I am without fault here. There have been times I have even been less than loving in some of my remarks. I also, don't always know how to state things in written form, in a way that does justice what is on my mind justice.
Saying all that, I am not even sure replying in this matter is the right thing to do. But I am hoping my brothers and sisters understand where I am coming from.
Sincerely
Tom
PS
Not surprisingly I just received a another reply from the person who wrote the article that shows what I said to him was lost on him. I had thought others might like to read his reply; but based on the last few posts of others. I think I will withhold what he said.
If however, someone would like to read it; please let me know.
© The Highway