1

2 Timothy 2:16(KJV) - But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Great post Joe. I can finally relax. I was getting all excited on my site jumping into the discussion.

I thought you were going to really waste your time trying to convince people about something they refuse to accept.

We walk by faith and not by sight so at some point we will not be able to explain by logic our position on the Word of God. We believe the Word of God because we choose to!

God bless you Joe and you wrote a great article that I believe should settle this issue.

2 Corinthians 5:7(KJV) - For we walk by faith, not by sight:

2

I have personally taken both sides of this issue over time. The problem I have with inerrantcy is not that God can't make a perfect book, but rather that I can't read it perfectly. History has many examples of well meaning and probably heaven bound writers making assertions that today we see as incorrect. That is not the problem of the Bible but the interpreter. My conclusion still fails on my own fallibilty but I rather trust the Holy Spirt to confirm to me what I think I am understanding from the Bible and humbly assume that He will direct me to the right course.

3

I disagree with the comment by Donnell. We do not believe the Word of God because we choose to. (Unless he means we chose to only after regeneration.) Certainly an unregenerate man cannot, in his natural state, choose to believe the Word (1 Cor. 1:18.)

And, as Donnell pointed out, we walk by faith, and not by sight. However, it also true that God has always, at virtually every opportunity, provided physical proof. All of creation is proof of God’s existence. In the book of Judges, Gideon asks for multiple physical proofs that God was God. The proofs were given. When Moses asked to see God’s glory, God complied with the request. Psalm 19 teaches that the heavens declares God’s glory. When Jesus forgave the sins of a lame man, He could have just said “believe it or not,” but he didn’t, he then healed the man, providing physical proof of His deity. When Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, they thought they were seeing a ghost. He showed them he was flesh and blood, and that he could even eat. Paul writes, in the letter to the Romans, that since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Even in the case of “doubting” Thomas, Jesus allows Thomas to examine His wounds.

The point is, “I just believe the bible” or “the Spirit tells me it’s true” is fine. But we shouldn’t stop there. We can do better. We can argue based on non-circular historic evidence for the inerrancy of the bible. It won’t be strong enough to convince an unbeliever (apart from God using the proof to draw someone.) However, it provides assurance to the believer and helps to fulfill our biblical mandate to be prepared to defend our faith.

When someone asks, “Why do you believe the bible?” I think we should have a better answer than “I just do.”

God’s word never calls for “blind faith” either in God or self-referentially. Examining physical evidence is not in opposition to faith, although it is often viewed that way—as a sort of admission of a lack of faith. That’s too bad.

4

In addition to what David said, Yes we do accept the Bible by faith but that does not mean that it has to go against the evidence.

Biblical scholars and archeologist have in the past century have said that there was no Nazareth, but they have found evidence of Nazareth. They say that there was no (i forget the name) pool in Jerusalem, but they found the pool. They say that there was not a census, but they find proof of a census that fits in time to the birth of Jesus (@6-7 bc). yada, yada, yada

Time and time again, the bible is shown to be correct and to support the leap of faith that we Christians have taken. Yes, it is a leap of faith, but not a blind leap of faith.

5

Discerning when sharing the Gospel has turned into casting pearls before swine is always a tough one. One tell-tale sign for me is when I find myself more concerned with convincing someone that the point I'm making is right than just making the point and letting the Holy Spirit do the convincing.

6

Good post, Joe, thanks.

Something I've been struggling with this semester however (at the hands of Kevin Vanhoozer), is whether or not inerrancy is the best way to talk about the authority and reliability of the Bible. That being because I have a difficult time viewing the Bible merely as a rather disorganized collection of propositions that need to be extracted from their context and made to fit into a system of theology. The doctrine of inerrancy priviledges this deficient (in my opinion) way of looking at Scripture by focusing what we conceive of as authoritative only on propositions - things that can be true or false (the doctrine of inerrancy tells us that all of these propositions are true).

I'm still an inerrantist, but I hesitate to use language such as, "The Bible is inerrant in all it affirms," in favor of something like (and I'm still formulating this), "The Bible is inerrant in the way in which it proposes to guide us in our thinking and living." Using statements like the former suggest that all the Bible does is affirm right belief and deny wrong belief. But does God not also desire to use the Bible and its myriad of genres and ways of speaking to shape not only our thoughts about what is true, but also to also to shape the way we feel and act and rejoice, etc? Just because the way a genre is supposed to make us feel cannot be formulated in a proposition does not mean it is not inerrant.

But that's probably another post.

7

What is important to remember is what the Bible does do:

The Bible is God's story, how his story reshapes history. He is working to bring all people into the light. The OT is about the weaknesses and stubborness of people, the people of Israel.

Israel repeatedly blew it, they became self-righteous, judgemental, rebellious. The Israeli's would forget that history is about God, not them. God used Israel to reach the world until Christ came to see a universal heart as opposed to the God of Israel.

When we realize that we are trapped by sin and need a saviour, then we have fulfilled the theme of the entire Bible. When we realize that our own plans and ingenuity (supposed wisdom and reason) won't get us there, only with His Spirit living through us will get us salvation, peace of mind, wholeness, living the life of God here on earth.

This is what the Bible is about. If it was a manual on who is going to Heaven and who is goint to hell, it would be much shorter.

8

We would do well to learn from Israel's mistakes btw.

9

My favorite statement on inerrancy comes from C.S. Lewis:

"Jonah and the Whale, Noah and his Ark, are fabulous [Lewis is talking fabulous in the sense of fables]; but the Court history of King David is probably as reliable as the Court history of Louis XIV. . . . If we could sort out all the fabulous elements in the earlier stages and separate them from the historical ones, I think we lose an essential part of the whole process."

from "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics" (1970).

10

Good stuff. Great post, thanks, Joe.

And "evangelical atheist?" Classic!

11

Bryan Using statements like the former suggest that all the Bible does is affirm right belief and deny wrong belief.

Excellent point, Bryan. I've often encountered inerrantists who seem to think that the doctrine (as often formulated) is the last word on Scripture rather than a clarification of how we should regard the propositional truth claims of the Bible. Defending propositional truth is a necessary task, of course, but it is not the only necessary task. The propositional content is a significant but it does not exhaust the riches to be found in the Word.

12

Charles Spurgeon stated: Christianity suffers more from the proponents of scripture rather than its opponents.

13

A few comments:

**************************************
You wrote -
"Let’s begin with a pair of questions: Is it possible for there to exist a book (or collection of books) which makes no false affirmations, assertions, or claims? Furthermore, is it possible that there could exist a divinely inspired (or collection of books) which makes no false affirmations, assertions, or claims? For an orthodox Christian to claim that both of these are impossible would be inconceivable; such a contention would be evidence of either foggy-reasoning or excessive hubris.

Because we will agree that it is possible, the question becomes whether we have reason to believe that such a divinely inspired book (or collection of books) which make no false affirmations, assertions, or claims actually exists in reality. The inerrantists answers yes, and contends that the Bible fits this criteria."

*****************************************
I find it logically inconsistent that an evangelical can affirm the statement above, but then deny the next logical step:

If God went to all the trouble to give us an inerrant book, surely he would want us to agree on what it teaches - what point is an inerrant book if its readers cannot agree on what it says? But we observe in experience that sincere, godly, learned people disagree quite sharply on what the Bible says. So it is logical that God would also give us an infallible interpreter of Scripture who would speak definitively on what the Bible means. It is no less possible for God to do this than for him to provide an inerrant Bible. But, um, that line of reasoning would push evangelicals into the Catholic church, so we stop the argument and engage in some hand-waving about the illumination of the Holy Spirit, etc. If we claim that God must speak through an inerrant book, then I find no way to deny that he should and indeed must provide an inerrant interpreter to that book, or else we are no better off than when we started.

But my deeper problem with inerrancy is that most Christians hold it in theory but not in practice. What I find more often is "omissional inerrancy" where we emphasize and harmonize and exalt the passages we like the best and just sweep the others under the rug. I've rarely, if ever, seen a piece of writing about God's love for mankind that also discusses the flood or the conquests of the Old Testament. I've never seen writing that explains why God should be so obsessive about his people keeping the law early in the Old Testament, then Jesus comes along and says that it is all good and the law just magically goes away.

In many evangelical churches the Old Testament is rarely touched, and I believe that part of the reason is that it really wreaks havoc on the view of God we would like to have in the New Testament.

Further, there are some passages, even within the New Testament, that blatantly contradict one another on matters essential to the Christian faith. Paul says very clearly that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." James says equally clearly "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." Now I've heard all the sermons on this and read all the commentaries, but I'm sorry, this is a flat-out contradiction. When you add to it the background from Acts and Paul's epistles about the conflicts between Paul and James, it is easy to see these two views as explicitly challenging and contradicting each other rather than complementing.

I find it interesting that you took up a position to defend inerrancy, and then basically gave up defending it to nonbelievers. Why would you do so? I doubt that you would give up defending the resurrection, or the deity of Christ. Is it that you find inerrancy much less defensible than these other beliefs? I would think that inerrancy, if it can be demonstrated, would be the STARTING point to the arguments for the other things, not something to be avoided when discussing them. . .

14

I have had many non-Christians tell me that there is error in the Bible but so far none have been able to point one out. I understand that. I'm sure that anyone here would at least have a passage to talk about but that's another story.
A Christian's life and eternal future revolves around promises from God found only in the Bible. For me to understand a Christian who believes the Bible is not inerrant, I must assume that they haven't considered the implications of such a belief.

15

A doubter If God went to all the trouble to give us an inerrant book, surely he would want us to agree on what it teaches - what point is an inerrant book if its readers cannot agree on what it says?

I think your point discounts the freedom that God has provided and humanities fallenness. To provide a more extreme example, your question could also be formulated as: “If God goes to the trouble of sending his perfect Son as a sacrifice, surely he would want us to accept his gift – what point is Christ’s death if some people refuse to accept it?

Nevertheless, it is not logically inconsistent as you say to think that God could provide an inerrant text and yet would not provide the means to prevent if from being inerrantly interpreted. You may think it would be better for God to have done so but there is nothing illogical about the way he has revealed himself.

If we claim that God must speak through an inerrant book, then I find no way to deny that he should and indeed must provide an inerrant interpreter to that book, or else we are no better off than when we started.

First, no one is claiming that God must do anything. I am only claiming that God has in fact provided us with an inerrant Scripture. Second, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. For instance, just because you make a statement that is true does not mean that you must therefore also provide an interpreter so that no one can every misunderstand you. You may prefer that God works that way but it is not a logical requirement.

But my deeper problem with inerrancy is that most Christians hold it in theory but not in practice. What I find more often is "omissional inerrancy" where we emphasize and harmonize and exalt the passages we like the best and just sweep the others under the rug.

That’s a problem with hermeneutics, not inerrancy.

In many evangelical churches the Old Testament is rarely touched,…

What evangelical churches do not touch on the OT? I’ve spent my entire life in such churches and have never encountered that.

…and I believe that part of the reason is that it really wreaks havoc on the view of God we would like to have in the New Testament.

I don’t know of any evangelical that thinks the OT view of God wreaks havoc on the concepts in the NT.

Now I've heard all the sermons on this and read all the commentaries, but I'm sorry, this is a flat-out contradiction.

This is the sort of hubris I was referring to earlier for you claim to be able to know more than those who thoroughly familiar with the writings of Paul and James. You have the right to think whatever you want. But unless you can claim to have a complete understanding of what the passages are saying and the context for which they are written I think it’s a bit presumptuous of you to claim that it is a “flat-out contradiction.”

I find it interesting that you took up a position to defend inerrancy, and then basically gave up defending it to nonbelievers. Why would you do so?

Because inerrancy is like sanctification -- a doctrine for believers, not for the unregenerate.

I doubt that you would give up defending the resurrection, or the deity of Christ. Is it that you find inerrancy much less defensible than these other beliefs?

Not less defensible, just less necessary. The resurrection and the deity of Christ are absolutely essential beliefs. Inerrancy may be important but I don’t know of anyone who would say that it is as important to believe in that doctrine as it is to believe that Christ is the second person of the Trinity.

I would think that inerrancy, if it can be demonstrated, would be the STARTING point to the arguments for the other things, not something to be avoided when discussing them. . .

Why would it be a “starting point?” A book can be error free without being divinely inspired, much less necessary for salvation.

16

While I disagree with you, Joe, on the inerrancy issue, I fully agree that it is a waste of time for believers and unbelievers to debate on this issue. I'm convinced that a "common-sense" reading of the Bible yields well over a thousand contradictions (or as believers lovingly refer to them "apparent discrepancies"). Yet believers over the last 2,000 years have crafted a set of rules that reinterpret these contradictions away.

Top Ten Ways to Eliminate Contradictions

1. Begin and end with the absolute conviction that the Bible contains no contradictions. What appears to be a contradiction is therefore only a misunderstanding on your part. Any possible explanation for an “apparent discrepancy” must be embraced, regardless of how unlikely it is.

2. When a clear and undeniable contradiction appears, convince yourself that the error has crept in due to careless scribes and could not have been in the original manuscript. Since no original manuscripts have survived no one can prove you wrong. This is the favored method in the dozens of numerical contradictions between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles.

3. Learn to redefine words and phrases. For instance, one passage says that “no man has seen God.” Other passages state that various individuals have seen God, such as Abraham, Hagar, Jacob and Moses. This can be resolved by redefining the word “see.” In the first passage, it must be a literal “seeing,” while in the other passages it must mean a figurative “seeing.” You do not need to prove that the authors intended this. This technique will solve many of the obvious contradictions.

4. Conflate, conflate, conflate. When two or more parallel passages describe an event in contradictory ways, you must assume that they are both (or all) right. For instance, in 1 Samuel 24, God tempts David to conduct a census, while in 1 Chronicles 21, the tempter is Satan. You must therefore conclude that both parties were the cause. Another example involves Peter’s denials of Jesus. Each of the four gospels concurs that there were three denials. However, each one gives a different description of the three denials. Therefore, you must conclude that there were actually between six and nine denials, but that each gospel only tells us about three.

5. Assume hidden facts. When a passage is clearly contradictory to another passage or to known historical or scientific facts, assume that the Bible writers knew these facts, but simply chose not to mention them. For instance, in the clearly contradictory genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, assume that Luke must actually be giving Mary’s genealogy, even though this is nowhere stated or even implied.

6. Double names. When two (or more) passages give different names for the same person, assume that the person had two (or more) names. This must be done dozens of times in reconciling Samuel/Kings with Chronicles. It is also vital to resolving contradictions in the gospels (Matthew/Levi and Judas/Thaddeus). You do not need any evidence proving that the person actually went by two names.

7. Assume supernatural knowledge. New Testament writers often embellish or re-write Old Testament events. You must always assume that the NT writers had access to secret information and were always correct. For instance, James tells us that Elijah prayed that there be no rain for three years. In the OT account, there is no mention at all of Elijah praying for no rain. In fact, it all appears to be God’s idea. To reconcile this mistake, assume that Elijah actually did pray, James knew this supernaturally, and that the writer of 1 Kings just didn’t mention it.

8. Paraphrase. When two accounts give a clearly different account of the same speech, assume that one or both are paraphrasing. This is an essential method for eliminating the striking differences in the gospels regarding the sayings of Jesus. For instance, Matthew and Luke give obviously different renderings of the “Lord’s Prayer.” To resolve this clear contradiction, you must assume that either Matthew or Luke or both are only giving us a “sense” of Jesus’ words, not the actual words. This technique takes a while to get accustomed to since it means giving a latitude of creativity which would not be tolerated in modern journalism or historical writing. One can soften this inconsistency by telling oneself that ancient writers didn’t have the same standards that we do and that we shouldn’t judge them by our standards of accuracy.

9. Be creative! Many of the contradictions call for uniquely creative solutions. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different and “apparently contradictory” accounts of the creation. In one, vegetation is created on the third day and male and female are created simultaneously on the sixth day. In the other, man is created first, then everything else (including vegetation), and finally woman (from man’s rib), all on the same day. How to solve this intractable problem? Easy! Simply assume that the first account is a big picture overview, while the second story “zooms in” on Adam and Eve on the sixth day in the Garden of Eden.

10. When all else fails (although rule #2 usually works when all else fails), tell yourself that someday you’ll understand. Meanwhile you must have more faith. Since you have resolved all the other contradictions, then the remaining unsolved contradictions must also have explanations. After living with this mindset for a few years, your mind will slowly give way to your emotions and the contradictions won’t bother you anymore. In fact, you may conclude that the contradictions are a beautiful reminder of God’s inscrutability and unknowability.

Conclusion: Using these simple rules, you can eliminate every contradiction in the Bible. In fact, using these same rules you can eliminate every contradiction in the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Harry Potter series and every book (holy or otherwise) ever written.

As you rightly point out Joe, establishing inerrancy does not establish divine inspiration. On the other hand, if the Bible does contain errors, it brings into question its divine inspiration. At the very least, it brings up the question of why God would allow mistakes in his word and how he expects us to determine exactly which parts of the text are human and which parts are divine.

17

I would assume that the point of an inerrant Bible would be to give a clear, unambiguous consistent rule of faith and practice. However, we find that sincere, intelligent, God-seeking people through the ages have disagreed on faith and practice. This can lead to one of three conclusions:

a. The book is not really inerrant to begin with. (the semi-skeptical position)

or

b. The people "on the other side of the issue" are not really -pick some of the following - (sincere/godly/filled with the Holy Spirit/hermeneutically advanced/knowledgeable in greek and hebrew) as we are. (the implicit Protestant position)

or

c. God never meant interpretation to be left up to every believer, but appointed someone infallible to interpret for us. (the Catholic position)

I think I lean more toward A, though I'm investigating the Catholic church to see if I can find C to be tenable.

In terms of evangelical use of the Old Testament, I'd have to agree to disagree with you on that one. I've attended a number of Bible believing evangelical churches in my lifetime, and cannot remember one sermon from Leviticus, or on the Conquests, or any other sticky Old Testament topic (and few on hell, for that matter). Your mileage may vary.

In terms of Paul and James, I agree that I am not a scholar on either of them. I've just read and studied the Bible intensely on this point and feel that the most natural reading of Acts, Paul's epistles, and James points to an understanding that they were on opposite poles of a doctrinal conflict in the church, and James is, in part, writing a polemic against Paul in his epistle. Note Paul's attitude toward James in Galatians:

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray." Gal 2:11-13.

In terms of the foundations of inerrancy to apologetics, I would have to disagree with you there as well. The resurrection of Christ and his deity especially depend upon the Bible giving us reliable accounts of his words and actions. I would argue that a view of inerrancy, if one can defend it, would be especially helpful for undergirding these doctrines. Yet most Christian apologists do not start with inerrancy. Why? It is especially hard to defend inerrancy. Believe me, I've been there, leading apologetics seminars and wanting to dodge the inerrancy question because of all the difficult-to-resolve contradictions.

One further point - if the Bible is inerrant, why do we find that we have to retreat from very clear passages? Let's take the New Testament teachings on prayer as an example. The New Testament (particularly the gospels) makes very extravagant promises about prayer, promises that contradict the experiences of many believers (statements like "whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it, and it will be yours", "how much more will your father give good gifts to those who ask him", etc). Why do we retreat from these passages with the whole "well, sometimes God says yes, sometimes he says wait, sometimes we don't understand, but he answers in mysterious ways"? I understand that the answer is "Well, we have to take these passages in light of other teachings of Scripture", but isn't that just a way of saying "Well, other passages turn attention away from this obviously false statement, so let's focus on those instead"?

I know I'm sounding harsh, but I had a lot invested in inerrancy at one point and am somewhat bitter at the way Christians blithely pass over very difficult passages of Scripture that seem to contradict both other Scriptures and their own experience. At first when I started noticing the contradictions I just chalked them up to mystery. But as the mysteries have multiplied more and more, I'm beginning to realize that I'm much more a mystic than a classical Christian.

18

Ex-preacher: Regarding your example of Genesis 1 & 2. It starts with an account of creation with a time line. Once you get past God resting on the 7th day, there is no timeline. What follows is more detail about what happened not when it happened. No wonder you find so many contradictions.
A Doubter: Many of the passages you refer to about prayer have the words "in My name" in them and Christians often end prayer with the words "in Jesus name" but I don't know any who think tacking on those three words will magically make it happen just because they're there. In Romans 8:26-27 we find the Holy Spirit praying for us because we don't know what we should pray for. First John 5:14 also helps add to understanding answered prayer. If a Christian's thinking was perfectly aligned with God and he was completely submitted to God all prayers would be answered. I don't know that Christian, everyone I know is heading in that direction, most like myself with a long way to go.

19

Joe,

Great post and correct position. I am a little bit concerned about the current distaste for the word "inerrant". Yes, yes, I understand that the Bible doesn't use that word to describe itself, sure; yes, I understand that, when applied, say, to the poetry of Song of Solomon, it's an awkward description. But I think that that misses the point, and perhaps Vanhoozer misses the point. Inerrancy is a word coined for a particular reason to guard against particular error. It isn't the be-all-and-end-all word that we use to describe the Bible, but rather it is used as over against the position of theological liberalism which posits that the Bible is riddled with errors. It is in this context that we can say that the word "inerrant" is most useful.

Further, the issue is much larger than "does the Bible have a few errors of history/science or not?" The issue relates to the very vantage point from which we view the Bible to begin with: is it God's Word to us (the orthodox view), or is it man's word about God (the liberal view)? Jettison inerrancy, and you're left with the latter, and that puts us into another whole realm of understanding.

How big is this issue? It is the watershed, as Francis Schaeffer said. It is not that an individual cannot go to Heaven if he denies it; God alone gets to make that call. But once inerrancy is tossed overboard, the slippery slope is begun and, absent a pretty painful course correction (witness the Southern Baptists), you end up looking like the UCC or the PCUSA or the UMC or the other denominations that have unfortunately gone (for the most part, not in totality) off the deep end.

20

So, Byron, are you saying inerrancy is best assumed because it is useful to avoid slippery slope descent into liberalism, not because it is true?

I've always felt that the doctrine required an unhealthy dose of self-delusion.

21

No, of course not, Rob, but that is an important entailment. If inerrancy is not first of all true, then hang any utilitarian component, but the fact remains, I think, that a whole host of devils are ultimately unavoidable if we abandon inerrancy.

22

A doubter

"If God went to all the trouble to give us an inerrant book, surely he would want us to agree on what it teaches - what point is an inerrant book if its readers cannot agree on what it says?"

Here you lump believers and non-believers into the same group but the truth is God transforms the elect allowing agreement on what the bible says among the true believers, the reprobates are given over to a depraved mind and are thus incapable of accepting the truth

"But my deeper problem with inerrancy is that most Christians hold it in theory but not in practice. What I find more often is "omissional inerrancy" where we emphasize and harmonize and exalt the passages we like the best and just sweep the others under the rug."

True enough but this does not disprove inerrancy rather it merely demonstrates that there are many who claim to be Christians who are in fact not true believers.

"I've never seen writing that explains why God should be so obsessive about his people keeping the law early in the Old Testament, then Jesus comes along and says that it is all good and the law just magically goes away."

You'll find it in the Bible which you obviously have not yet read, for in Matthew 5:17 Jesus is quite clear on the matter "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

"I've rarely, if ever, seen a piece of writing about God's love for mankind that also discusses the flood or the conquests of the Old Testament."

Uh...its all in a book called the Bible. A complete reading will make clear the following; God has infinite love for his people, the reprobates will suffer the full measure of his wrath.

"Paul says very clearly that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." James says equally clearly "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

Here you leap from what is a difference in emphasis to asserting a contradiction which dosen't exist.

The biblical writers do not always use the same words to convey the same concepts, John for example never uses the term Justification to refer to salvation by faith alone, however a reading of John 3:18, 6:28-29, 8:23-24, and 20:31 makes it clear that salvation by faith and not works is what he believes.
As for James in your post here he is referring to the works of someone who is claiming to be justified, it is his contetion that if one is justified the works will follow, or specifically here if there are no works then the individual has not in fact been saved, works are evidence of salvation but not a means to it.
Your flawed and superficial understanding is to be expected of a reprobate, I was just as foolish and stupid before conversion. Once you are saved, God willing you will embark on a more exhaustive and comprehensive reading of scripture than you obviously have done to date.
As for this quote it only proves the fallacy of true knowledge by empiricism
"Now I've heard all the sermons on this and read all the commentaries"
Obviously this is impossible even without taking into account that this would require you to have knowledge of all the world's languages, be able to time travel to the past and future to eavesdrop on unpublished conversations or read subsequently destroyed publications, or ones to yet be written (including my post) and to read the minds of individuals reading the bible in solitary. All in all nothing short than what I would expect from foolish and sinful rebel given over to a depraved mind.

23

A Doubter,

I too have wrestled with the seemingly opposing views of James and Paul. For me personally, it was extremely helpful when I considered the context of much of Romans and Galations and what was the biggest controversy of the early church. That of whether you needed to become Jewish (circumcision issue) as a part of becoming Christian. In that context, it may be that Paul and James weren't talking directly about the same issue, although there is probably some overlap. I'm more and more convinced that Paul was primarily concerned (Paul wrote alot, I'm only referring here to the early chapters of Romans and Galations, and even then not exclusively) with works of the Law, as in circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Whereas the book of James dealt primarily with good works such as those "created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do".

If interested, here's a link that explains this view better than I have:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp

24

Heddle

"We can argue based on non-circular historic evidence for the inerrancy of the bible."

What does inerrancy mean again?

Does it mean "accurate" or "correct" or does it mean more like "nothing so contradictory that it makes people laugh, other than the usual paradoxes associated with all-powerful beings who express "disappointment" with the way things are going"?

25

Ellwood - Thanks for that note. . .I've often had the sneaking suspicion that when Paul talks of works he is more specifically discussing the acts of external Jewish religion and trust in them rather than general morality. I still get the sense that there was some underlying conflict between Paul and James - James' wording and use of Abraham as an example to me seems to directly parallel and "correct" the way Paul goes about it. Again, I'm no scholar on either of them (in the sense that I don't have a Ph.D. in either subject). I look forward to reading N.T. Wright's works on Paul for some further insight. Yes, that means that I was being dramatic when I stated that I had listened to all the sermons and read all the commentaries. I still have much to learn - but at the same time we must draw our theories from what we have learned so far, and from everything I've learned so far I still can't shake the feeling that Paul and James are debating with one another, not agreeing. If I cannot be honest about that, then my "faith" is nothing but an external act and not an inner reality.

As for Scott, perhaps you are right that I am an ignorant reprobate. Those who know me personally would not say such - they would describe me as someone who probably thinks and reads and cares TOO MUCH about these topics rather than too little. I'm a bit disturbed that you could peg me as such without even knowing me. The things I have written come after much time spent in serious personal and corporate Bible study, corporate worship, and much time in prayer.

When I referred to "readers" who do not agree on what the Bible says, I was referring to those who self-identify as Christians of some stripe or another and who seek to discern God's character and will as expressed in the Bible. If what you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with your particular doctrinal views is not a believer. . .well, good luck with that. The time I have spent in the Bible has taught me that I must approach others with humility and at least listen to what they have to say and assume that they are also seeking God and trying to understand him, even if I happen to disagree.

You'll find it in the Bible which you obviously have not yet read, for in Matthew 5:17 Jesus is quite clear on the matter "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

But what does this MEAN practically? You'll find that much of Acts and the Epistles wrestle these questions. People in the early church took all kinds of positions on this, from circumcision and adherence to the Law as a requirement for salvation (the Judaisers) to Peter's evolving views and struggle to Paul's view that salvation had nothing to do with observance of the ritual Judaic law. The first church council as recorded in Acts was devoted to this very question. It is fairly clear to me that whatever Jesus had to say on the issue, it didn't settle things instantly.

26

A Doubter

"It is fairly clear to me that whatever Jesus had to say on the issue, it didn't settle things instantly."

So...you don't affirm the Trinity? Acceptance of Chritianity is to affirm that Jesus was Messiah and his incarnation, ministry and blood sacrifice settle all things now and forever.

"If what you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with your particular doctrinal views is not a believer. . .well, good luck with that."

These are not my views, rather they are the clearly revealed truth of scripture, as for your good luck wish I am not sure what it is for. There is no luck, only God's divine sovereignty.

"But what does this MEAN practically? You'll find that much of Acts and the Epistles wrestle these questions."

How much clearer could it be? If you need more understanding read the sermon on the mount in its entirety, (not just the parts that make you feel warm and fuzzy)

"I'm a bit disturbed that you could peg me as such without even knowing me."

Your comments and user name reveal your position.

Thus

"I would think that inerrancy, if it can be demonstrated, would be the STARTING point to the arguments for the other things, not something to be avoided when discussing them. . ."

#1 Inerrancy is the first principle for the Christian World view, and it follows that all of the Bible is the true revealed word of God"

therefore if the following is your assertion

"Further, there are some passages, even within the New Testament, that blatantly contradict one another on matters essential to the Christian faith."

You clearly do not affirm #1 making you a unbeliever or reprobate.

I know you by your beliefs, unless of course these are not what you affirm, since you claim to have spent much time, in fact TOO much time "studying" the bible the true faith has thus far escaped you.

If you do not affirm the the first principle you put yourself in the position of judging God as clearly demonstrated by your comment

"It is fairly clear to me that whatever Jesus had to say on the issue, it didn't settle things instantly."

Here you either criticize Jesus Christ the son of God of either being wrong or not communicating in a clear fashion, but if you affirm the Chritian God you must believe the opposite, that Christ Jesus is one with God,lived a perfect life and fulfilled all the prophecy of the old Testament.

The following makes your open rebellion against God clear

"I know I'm sounding harsh, but I had a lot invested in inerrancy at one point and am somewhat bitter at the way Christians blithely pass over very difficult passages of Scripture that seem to contradict both other Scriptures and their own experience. At first when I started noticing the contradictions I just chalked them up to mystery. But as the mysteries have multiplied more and more, I'm beginning to realize that I'm much more a mystic than a classical Christian."

You're not a Christian at all, don't try to guilt me with statements like

"The time I have spent in the Bible has taught me that I must approach others with humility and at least listen to what they have to say and assume that they are also seeking God and trying to understand him, even if I happen to disagree."

You insult my God and openly defy him, claim the bible is full of contradictions, seek to place human dignity and sentiments above the glory of God and you expect me to tolerate your foolishness with humility? No, that I reserve for my brothers and sisters in faith.

27

You said:

"wars masquerading as debate are a complete waste of time"

I agree. I've spent the rounds from my debate gun. God started whispering in my ear: "your time is better spent elsewhere...go love someone that needs your love...go help someone that needs your help."

You said:

"I remain firmly of the opinion that inerrancy, properly understood, is the most humble position a believer can take in regards to the Bible."

I agree. I think at the core of heart during the times I struggled with the Bible was a spirit of selfishness - I didn't want to submit ... I didn't want to rely on anything or anyone. I wanted to be the center of the universe. I wanted the Bible to exist for me. If it was imperfect, I could pick and choose what I wanted from it and piece together my own theoligica. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Scripture defines scripture. Individual pieces don't make sense without other pieces.

A hack 'n slash approach to the Bible leaves us reliant upon ourselves way to heavily. I don’t have the time to decide what is right or wrong in the Bible. When we do this, the Bible is filtered through our flesh - our selfish desires to be right. I know I'm not right. I want God to be right. I don’t have the time to create an intricate god to suit my needs.

28

@A Doubter:

I think your points are quite correct and you have seen the heart of the matter that most people here (as Evangelicals) have not grasped: that Scripture can't be the only source of inerrancy because it's a text that can be interpreted in many different ways. You need a living and consistent voice that explains, in an infallible way, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (You may have guessed by now that I am a Catholic... :-))

I think most of the people here use a kind of circular reasoning: You have to submit to the Bible and then you will understand it; if you have not submitted to the Bible then you are unable to understand it.

All this sounds to me awfully like: "If you have stopped thinking, then you will understand." But reading the Bible does not mean to stop thinking and submit to whatever the community you may live in advocates as a correct interpretation. It means acknowledging what lies at the heart of the Bible: the faith of the Church, the faith of the Apostles. Because, by looking the Scripture through the eyes of the Church, you will never go wrong (and many parts, such as Mt 16:18, Jn 6:32-69, Jn 20:21, Jn 21:15-19, Acts 8:15-24, Acts 15) just make a lot more sense this way than when reading them from an Evangelical perspective...

29

[as usual, the first few posts were interesting and on-point, and then--well, I'm going to respond to something interesting up at the top: ]

@Bryan, and also for general purposes--

Here's how I've broken it down for myself (the omitted portion is a detailed list of the references from author to author among the apostles, immediate associates of the apostles, and Christ):

A. Canonicity. The Bible is the record of God’s revelation to men throughout history, given to us by the Holy Spirit through carefully prepared and specially guided “holy men of God.” (2 Pet 1:20,21). Christians ought to accept the New Testament canon as a unified set of writings because [omitted for brevity]

B. Further, because an abundance of quotations and references make it clear that the New Testament writers unequivocally accepted the Hebrew Scriptures and based their acceptance of Christ’s Messianic and redemptive roles upon the authority of what Christians know as the Old Testament, Christians ought to accept the Old Testament as a unified whole (Luke 4:16-21; 24:25-27, 44-49; Hebrews 1:1-3, 8:7-13).

C. Textual Criticism. Because God is faithful to preserve His Word, all honest linguistic and textual study can be expected to improve the believer’s understanding of and confidence in the translation and interpretation of God’s Word.

D. Authority. Taken together, the Old and New Testaments form the core of God’s revelation to man, the authoritative Word of God which no truth will contradict. In the original autographs, all Scripture is verbally accurate to the divine meaning: logical propositions are true as stated, poetic figures are apt to their subject, prophecies are genuinely to be fulfilled and historical narratives are accurate in all their details (Is 55:6-13; Matt 5:17-20).

E. The Bible, when correctly read by the believer with mind and heart submitted to the Holy Spirit, constitutes an infallible rule for faith and practice, superior to any interpretive tradition, ecclesiastical authority or other human system (Heb 4:12; 1 Tim 3:14-17).

-------------

The italicized portion states what I consider to be the truth of inerrancy, when abstracted slightly from the "propositional" limits (which I agree are a misstatement of sound hermeneutics); but you will notice that the bolded section clearly articulates that there are no "errors" even in the "non-propositional" aspects of Scripture.

It would not do to point out that "poetry is not expository prose" if, in so doing, we then said "and therefore would be endlessly interperable."

Not making a deconstructible ontologizing of Scripture (i.e., rend[er]ing it into a hodge-podge true-false quiz) should not mean treating it as if it had been deconstructed!

Cheers,
PGE

30

Though, I would note, I'm leery of that phrase "meaning" these days--if I rewrote, I'd change it. May do it soon.

31

Petra

"Scripture can't be the only source of inerrancy because it's a text that can be interpreted in many different ways. "

The fact that a truth can be incorrectly interpreted in different ways does not invalidate it.
1+1=2 however an infinite number of incorrect interpretations exist for this formula ie 1+1=3,4,5,6,7 etc

If you assert the Bible is not inerrant yet still claim to be a Christian you must hold the position that parts of it are true...but this begs the question which parts? If the truth of scripture is open to different interpretations then you are affirming truth is relative but this would mean that since there are no absolute truths only relative truths open to interpretation we can never really know anything true, of course if we cannot know that anything is true we cannot know that we cannot know that anything is true etc which leads to a collapse in your world view.

"You need a living and consistent voice that explains, in an infallible way, the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Where in the Bible it say this? Is the pope your God? If so how do you justify this?

"what lies at the heart of the Bible: the faith of the Church, the faith of the Apostles"

This is not the heart of the Bible, the Bible is the revealed word of God describing his nature to us in all of his glory, and setting down the preconditions for our relationship to him.

32

Scott

"You're not a Christian at all,"

OUTCH!!!!

Looks like Doubter is going to be have a long vacation with the Horned One after he departs this world.

33

scott

"If you assert the Bible is not inerrant yet still claim to be a Christian you must hold the position that parts of it are true...but this begs the question which parts?"

The parts that you want to be literally true. As expreacher points out, all the inconvenient stuff that you don't like, you can just handwave some semantic argument over it that, for some reason that is "clear" to a "theologian" or "Biblical scholar," the passage in question doesn't apply to 21st century humans.

This has been going on forever.

Religions evolve. To the extent they don't, they become cults of fanatics and scrape by in the margins of society.

34

I'm a bit surprised that no one has responded to my earlier post showing that C.S. Lewis regarded the stories of Jonah and the whale and Noah and the Ark as fables.

Here's more about C.S. Lewis and inerrancy from evangelical Albert Mohler's commentary today:

"Nevertheless, Lewis was often not a careful theologian. He was an inclusivist on the question of salvation, believing that at least some who did not consciously believe in Christ would be saved. He rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and was never adequately specific about his understanding of the atonement. He was a firm defender of orthodoxy on doctrines such as the Trinity, but apparently accepted baptismal regeneration and never adequately affirmed justification by faith."

Are today's evangelical inerrantists willing to say that C.S. Lewis, considered by many (most?) evangelicals to be the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century was completely wrong about a key issue (a "watershed" issue).

On the issue of best-selling authors and inerrancy, I would humbly recommend that you take a look at NT scholar Bart Ehrman's new book "Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" currently at #38 at amazon.com.

The Booklist review says: "Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. "

35

Christians like Scott drive many more from the faith than doubt or science ever could.

36

ex-Preacher

"Are today's evangelical inerrantists willing to say that C.S. Lewis, considered by many (most?) evangelicals to be the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century was completely wrong about a key issue (a "watershed" issue)."

"Nevertheless, Lewis was often not a careful theologian. He was an inclusivist on the question of salvation, believing that at least some who did not consciously believe in Christ would be saved. He rejected the inerrancy of Scripture..."

While I am not an authourity on C.S. Lewis if the above is indeed reflective of his beliefs than yes he was wrong, again if you do not accept inerrancy than you are left to arbitrarily decide which parts of the Bible are true or what of any reality is true. Is the story of Noah any less believable than the ressurection?

37

Rob

"Christians like Scott drive many more from the faith than doubt or science ever could."

The true Gospel must be preached in it's entirety, if this drives away the false believers so be it.In John 6 Jesus gave his followers a "hard teaching" (John 6:60)after which "many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him" (v.66). Christ preached and was rejected for the very reason that the message falls upon the ears of the reprobates that do not want to be reminded of their sin and rebellion against God. Christianity is not an election campaign, there is no spin, there are no focus groups, there is only the truth.

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it"

I have no power to drive away or convert anyone to the faith, the choice is up to Almighty God.

Romans 9:18

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

38

Larry

"The parts that you want to be literally true. As expreacher points out, all the inconvenient stuff that you don't like, you can just handwave some semantic argument over it that, for some reason that is "clear" to a "theologian" or "Biblical scholar," the passage in question doesn't apply to 21st century humans."

I have shown the fallacy of this approach.

39

In regards to C.S. Lewis.

Ive read quite a few of his books and i'm not sure about the exact count but I can promise you he has said many times that he is not a theologian. He never claims to be a theologian and he is always rather humble about his understanding of the Bible.

That being said, C.S. Lewis is wrong on many counts and right on many counts.

So, to answer the following questions:

"Are today's evangelical inerrantists willing to say that C.S. Lewis, considered by many (most?) evangelicals to be the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century was completely wrong about a key issue (a "watershed" issue)."

Yes, he was wrong.

So what? You said yourself, C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist, not a Christian theologian.

The nice thing about C.S. Lewis was that he was always ready and willing to say that he didn't know when it came to the Bible and that he knew many people who were much more informed than he was.

40

Scott,
So, are you saying you believe that belief in the inerrency of Scripture is a necessary requirement to being a Christian? Honest question.
Also, where in holy Scripture does it teach that you may reserve humility for those already in the faith. Doesn't 1 Peter 3:15 instruct us differently? " in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" Please show A Doubter some respect, whether you have judged him to be a brother or not.
By the way, here's another admonishment from the midst of verses about the disputes aDoubter mentioned earlier.. Rom 14:4 "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. "
(no offense to you, a Doubter. Based on what I've read, I see more Christian character in you than Scott does.)

41

re C. S. Lewis:

Anyone with anywhere near Lewis' education, who still holds to inerrancy, knows that Lewis is no one to follow theologically. He was dead wrong about the Old Testament, and vigorously and at length displayed his errors.

That said, he was certainly converted to the true faith, and if he never understood it completely or properly, he did still do valuable work in making it easy to see the difference between a believer's struggle to "get it right" and an unbeliever's struggle not to accept the most blindlingly obvious truths about life and godliness.

A clarification many in these comments continue to reinforce.

Take care,
PGE

42

Elwood

"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. "

I have to take "A doubters" statements and assertions at face value unless he or she is just playing games.

Thus

"Further, there are some passages, even within the New Testament, that blatantly contradict one another on matters essential to the Christian faith."

and

I'm much more a mystic than a classical Christian."

"It is fairly clear to me that whatever Jesus had to say on the issue, it didn't settle things instantly."

These statements are not compatible with the Christian worldview which holds that scripture is the inerrant revealed word of God and that Jesus is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, lived a perfect life and was made incarnate to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament.

To say that the Bible "blatantly" contradicts itself is to say that either God "blatantly" contradicts himself which is heresey, or to hold the view that the Bible is not the revealed word of God and therefore we can never know anything since all we are left with is are arbitrary persoanl decisions about what is or isn't true. Seeking to place human wisdom above God's

As for

"Also, where in holy Scripture does it teach that you may reserve humility for those already in the faith."

Read Matthew 7:6 specifically, or the New Testament in full and observe how Jesus treats those who reject his teaching.

43

The Bible is inerrant. It is the way that we read it, view it, apply it that all too often falters.

Just look at the issue of the "left behind" series. We are all reading the same scripture, yet getting whole different meanings from it.

I have been to workshops with my professional colleagues (nursing) and have returned to discuss differences in what we learned. Some people latched to specific details on one issue and others remembered overall positions of the speakers ( and some just noticed or talked about the faults of the speakers).

As Christians, we must believe the OT, as Jesus acclaimed to it as the word of God. But we must also remember that sometimes the meaning of the word changed from Greek to English and that we as a western culture look at the meanings differently than those who read it 2000 years ago as well as those who wrote it.

Any one of you who can show to be perfectly aligned with God and yourself inerrant in interpreting the Bible will have my immediate attention. In the meantime, my only concern is the one path to God that we know of, Jesus.

44

And another thing ;-)

This is a repeat from my other post and I am suprised that no one responded to it.

"What is important to remember is what the Bible does do:

The Bible is God's story, how his story reshapes history. He is working to bring all people into the light. The OT is about the weaknesses and stubborness of people, the people of Israel.

Israel repeatedly blew it, they became self-righteous, judgemental, rebellious. The Israeli's would forget that history is about God, not them. God used Israel to reach the world until Christ came to see a universal heart as opposed to the God of Israel.

When we realize that we are trapped by sin and need a saviour, then we have fulfilled the theme of the entire Bible. When we realize that our own plans and ingenuity (supposed wisdom and reason) won't get us there. Only with His Spirit living through us will we get salvation, peace of mind, wholeness, living the life of God here on earth.

This is what the Bible is about. If it was a manual on who is going to Heaven and who is goint to hell, it would be much shorter".

The New Testament completes and transcends the OT. Anybody who is honest with him or herself will admit that they see things in the OT that is baffling and not understandable. It just doesn't make any sense. But again the thing to remember is that the Bible is the history of His-story. The Bible is about God, not us. Sometimes he had to show that he was God in a way that the Israelites would understand (win a battle), sometimes he let them lose because they failed him.

Again, if you look at the Bible as an escape from Hell manual, then you are missing the point.

45

Tim L

"The Bible is God's story, how his story reshapes history. He is working to bring all people into the light."

Does this mean you believe in universal salvation?

"Only with His Spirit living through us will we get salvation, peace of mind, wholeness, living the life of God here on earth."

But what about eternity? Or are you saying that "living the life of God here on earth" should be our ultimate goal?

"This is what the Bible is about. If it was a manual on who is going to Heaven and who is goint to hell, it would be much shorter"."

"Again, if you look at the Bible as an escape from Hell manual, then you are missing the point."

Please explain exactly what you are trying to say with these comments. Do you affirm the afterlife? If so are you suggesting the issues
as to what one must do to avoid hell and gain entrance into heaven are not addressed in the Bible?

46

"It is fairly clear to me that whatever Jesus had to say on the issue, it didn't settle things instantly."

If Jesus settled things instantly, we wouldn't still be having debates on such things as divorce and remarriage.

If Jesus settled things instantly, He wouldn't have been crucified.

If Jesus settled things instantly, Thomas wouldn't have needed to touch Jesus' wounds.

If Jesus settled things instantly, the parables would have been clear; instead, Jesus openly admitted that the parables were meant to cloud the truth for some and reveal it for other.

Are His words truth? Absolutely! But does truth "settle things" instantly? Not always.

47

Ellen

"If Jesus settled things instantly, we wouldn't still be having debates on such things as divorce and remarriage."

Scripture is clear on the issue of marriage, Jesus addresses this in Matthew 5:32 "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adultress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman becomes an adulterer."

Since Jesus is one with God and as you state speaks the truth then it follows that this pronouncement "settles instantly" a debate about marriage. Of course the reprobates and unbelievers rebel against this teaching and continue to act in sinful and man centred ways despite the truth. This ongoing sin does not take away from the fact that Jesus has "instantly settled" the issue.

"If Jesus settled things instantly, He wouldn't have been crucified."

The crucifixion is not the result of or evidence of confusion or debate. It wasn't a mistrial, there is no appeal of the verdict to a higher court, it was the fulfillment of God's will. The crucifixion, of all events in the Bible, seems to be in fact the one event that indeed did "settle everything instantly"

"If Jesus settled things instantly, the parables would have been clear; instead, Jesus openly admitted that the parables were meant to cloud the truth for some and reveal it for other.

They are intantly clear to the elect, the reprobates also innatley know them to be true, but reject and rebel against them according to God's sovereign will.

"Are His words truth? Absolutely! But does truth "settle things" instantly? Not always."

This statement does not hold up, how can you assert his words are true but do not settle things instantly? Are you saying there are no absolute truths? Or do you mean the existence of rejection of truth means the truth does not settle things? As pointed out in an earlier post there are an infinite number of disagreements about any truth. If 1+1=2 then to say 1+1=3 disagrees, but so does 1+1=4,5,6,7,8,9 etc. But the mere existence and advocation of these fallacies does not invalidate the truth of 1+1=2, or prevent one from saying the discovery of this truth "settles instantly" the issue of what the sum of 1+1 is.

48

Scott:

1) Of course I am saying that salvation is universal. If it wasn't only Israelites could be saved. In Christ, we see God's universal heart, not just the God of Israel.

2) Yes

3) I am just saying that it is not the purpose of the Bible. However yes, the Bible does reveal how to be sure of our entrance to heaven. That is through Jesus. Any other method is pretty shaky ground and should be feared.
Just saying that if you looked at the Bible just as an escape from hell manual then the point is being missed.

49

Scott,
I think you're misinterpreting Doubter's and Ellen's meaning of 'settles things instantly'. I think they would agree with you that what Jesus says goes. But the problem is with all humans' ability to understand what He means when he said all that He said. I agree that there is a difference between a believer and an unbeliever's ability to understand. The unbeliever does not have the same access to the Holy Spirit dwelling within them to guide to an infallible interpretation.
But even among believers, there exists the possibility of misinterpreting inerrant scripture. This is due to numerous factors. It could be as simple as not understanding the context of a passage. If the believer is docile to the Holy Spirit, such a mistake can be easily remedied with counsel from another believer or learning from some teacher. If a believer has some area of pride or sloth or attachment sin which has not been eradicated yet, it's more difficult to arrive at the correct interpretation.
But you can't say that all the elect will always have the exact same interpretation of Scripture or Jesus' words. Going back to the original example of the controversy about circumcision, etc. James, Peter, and Paul were all elect, agreed? Yet, at one time in their ministry they had opposing views on the subject. Yes, they did come to agreement as a result of the council in Acts. Yes, Jesus' words about anything 'settles it' in one sense, the most important sense. But Christians didn't settle among themselves and collectively come to a full understanding of what Jesus meant by His infallible declaration until later. That's no knock against or taking away from the infallible words of Jesus. His words are still the standard and the truth. The knock is against believers' level of docility to the Holy Spirit.

50

Repeatedly, Jesus wondered at the apostles inability to understand him, who he was, etc. They were a bit slow at times and they were physically with Jesus. Why would the Word make us any better at understanding him than those that were with him?

51

Tim L

"1) Of course I am saying that salvation is universal. If it wasn't only Israelites could be saved. In Christ, we see God's universal heart, not just the God of Israel."

How do you support the assertion that salvation is universal? Do you believe man has freewill?

"3) I am just saying that it is not the purpose of the Bible. However yes, the Bible does reveal how to be sure of our entrance to heaven. That is through Jesus. Any other method is pretty shaky ground and should be feared."

Any other method is impossible, wouldn't you agree?

52

Elwood

"But you can't say that all the elect will always have the exact same interpretation of Scripture or Jesus' words"

I agree, and as a matter of description of the process of redemptive work of the Holy Spirit I believe it to be accurate.

However certainly in the case of "a doubter" I believe this statement was offered as proof to support the argument that the mere existence of different intreptations of "the truth" (in our case the Bible is inerrant) was evidence that the proposition was in fact false.

This is certainly consistent with his first post

"However, we find that sincere, intelligent, God-seeking people through the ages have disagreed on faith and practice. This can lead to one of three conclusions:

a. The book is not really inerrant to begin with. (the semi-skeptical position)

b. The people "on the other side of the issue" are not really -pick some of the following - (sincere/godly/filled with the Holy Spirit/hermeneutically advanced/knowledgeable in greek and hebrew) as we are. (the implicit Protestant position)

or

c. God never meant interpretation to be left up to every believer, but appointed someone infallible to interpret for us. (the Catholic position)"

and his later complaint

"If God went to all the trouble to give us an inerrant book, surely he would want us to agree on what it teaches - what point is an inerrant book if its readers cannot agree on what it says?"

Clearly "A Doubter" falls into the group you describe as

"The unbeliever does not have the same access to the Holy Spirit dwelling within them to guide to an infallible interpretation."

53

Hi Joe et al:

Quite significant post!

I think that Joe has pointed out that this thread is really a debate among Christians, and am pleased to see that that has by and large been respected as a context of discussion.

I do think that a few things may help:

a] The basic Christian concept of God, e.g. as elaborated in Rom 1:16 - 32, ff, is that we encounter him in our inner and outer worlds, firt as Creator and as source of our sense of right and wrong, so all men have some knowledge of God, albeit it can be suppressed.

b] The Judaeo Christian tradition then speaks of the God of revelatory encounter, who has made covenant with Abraham and his spiritual heirs, culminatring in Jesus, of whom the Apostle Paul records:

RO 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

c] Therefore, by definition a Christian, properly, is one who has met the condition in Rom 10:

6 But the righteousness that is by faith says . . . 8 . . . "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

d] This, practically speaking, requires that we come to view the NT and OT scriptures as authentic and fundamentally accurate record of the core events in salvation, which is compatible with minor errors in the documents on secondary details etc; i.e. there is room for flexibility and dialogue. However, if Jesus is the risen Saviour, i.e. Lord of Life and Death, then his statements such as "scripture cannot be broken" as well as his evident implicit trust in the OT scriptures must carry a lot of weight, and this leads to serious issues that have to be addressed.

e] Similarly, the remarks he makes on how the Spirit would guide his apostles and disciples more generally into all truth are not to be ducked, any more than the issues that are raised over the more challenging things in the OT. in turn, that raises the issue that we are then looking at worldview level issues and that all significant anwers bristle with difficulties, so the only fair approach for those able to address that level, "dialectic" as opposed to "rhetoric," is comparative difficuies. [One implication of that is that e.g. the common proposed live option, evolutionary materialism, self-destructs as its monistic reductionism and determinism destroy the credibility of mind.]

f] In the course of such dialogue, one will meet the issue of the authority of the Scriptures, and the challenges to that authority -- especially the philosophically rooted ones over the past 300 years or so. When the balance of these issues is brought out, I thik it is fair to conclude that a suitably balanced understanding that can be labelled "inerrant" is viable and indeed is not necessarily circular, once one moves from credible intuitions, history and experience, to Jesus, to the respect for the Scriptures dear to him, to addressing alleged problems with them.

A few notes on specific points raised:

1] Rick: The problem I have with inerrantcy is not that God can't make a perfect book, but rather that I can't read it perfectly.

--> The issue here, as noted above, is that we face the challenge of being blinded by sin and needing to be corrected by the testimony of the Word of God:

2 TIM 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2] David: as Donnell pointed out, we walk by faith, and not by sight. However, it also true that God has always, at virtually every opportunity, provided physical proof. All of creation is proof of God’s existence. In the book of Judges, Gideon asks for multiple physical proofs that God was God. The proofs were given.

--> If you use "proof" in a flexible sense [one in which different degrees exist relative to the question at stake and one needs to adapt to that], yes God has provided appropriate and credible evidence.

--> But, that is precisely the challenge of the skeptic, for s/he often demands an inappropriate degree of proof on the pretence that the things of God must rise to the level of full mathematical proofs, when as matters of fact, we are looking at moral evidence. As Simon Greenleaf aptly observed in his Testimony of the Evangelists:

[3] . . . The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact -- the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. These are related by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge [and/or that of their sources, in the case of Luke, cf. Lk. 1:1 - 4]. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to those witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of the witnesses by the same rules and means which are there employed . . . .

[26] . . . It should be observed that the subject of inquiry is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical proof. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error. [NB: Even there, after Godel's work in the 1930's, we recognise that (1) no rich mathematical system can have a set of axioms that are both complete and self-consistent, and (2) there is no constructive procedure to generate a self-consistent system of axioms. That is, Mathematical systems and arguments, too, are open-ended, unable to capture all true claims and are subject to a residual uncertainty.] . . . In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . .

3] AD: If God went to all the trouble to give us an inerrant book, surely he would want us to agree on what it teaches - what point is an inerrant book if its readers cannot agree on what it says?

--> First, in fact once an objective approach to reading is taken, the core message soon emerges, i.e. the gospel. That is, there is less disagreement on key questions than your remarks imply.

--> Second, there is the fact that we are finite and fallible, and arguably fallen such that we meet a fundamental challenge posed by jesus:

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

--> In the teeth of such a challenge, the psychology of denial and self-deception leads to the problem of endarkenment: MT 6:22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

4] Ex, on contradictions: Begin and end with the absolute conviction that the Bible contains no contradictions. What appears to be a contradiction is therefore only a misunderstanding on your part. Any possible explanation for an “apparent discrepancy” must be embraced, regardless of how unlikely it is . . .

--> First, as is a major problem with other liberal theologians I have encountered, contradiction needs to be defined properly: affirming or implying [A AND ~A], i.e. to affirm and deny the same thing in the same sense.

--> Once that is seen, the accusation "contradiction" turns out to be easy to state but much harder to show. For, if A, B are in contradiction, we cannot identify E such that E AND [A AND B] are in harmony. So, once one can construct an explanation E such that E => [A AND B] then the alleged contradition vanishes, even if E is not true: all E has to be is a logically possible state of affairs. For instance, that is what Plantinga did to show that the deductive form of the problem of evil fails.

--> Similarly, when Peter Espeut publicly attacked evangelicals in Jamaica by alleging massive contradictions in the gospel accounts of the resurrection -- the test case no 1 often used by liberal theologians to assert the NT is full of contradictions -- it turned out that his charge also both manifestly fails and reflects an agenda of seeking radical disharmonies to infer to contraditction, e.g. as Spong often uses.

--> As I look at the rest of the points you evidently wish to dismiss wholesale as dishonest tricks, I find that the merit or demerits depend on the specific case in point. What is happening is that if you wish to be selectively hyperskeptical, you can construct a radical disharmony, but properly a harmony prevails over such in both logic and civility.

--> For instance, people often are known by two names. Similarly:

* no story can tell the whole account of what happens in a situation in all details so the presence of unstated harmonising facts or even logically possible states of affairs that provide harmonising explanation to divergent details is not to be dismissed out of hand; especially given the above points of logic. [And in my note I also addressed the issue of PLAUSIBILITY.]

* Also, there is indeed a known pattern of copyist errors in manuscripts -- the discipline of textual criticism studies them, and through that study is highly confident of the text underlying our Bibles.

* Nor is it wise to assume away the possibility of either accurate oral tradition -- in a culture thayt emphasised just such! -- or revelatory knowledge a priori.

* Again, citing the substance of a statement in a way that emphasises one aspect or another is not the same as inaccuracy.

* moreover, it is the well-known pattern of multiple eyewitness testimon that they have surface diversity surrounding a solid core. And more . . .

+++++++++

Grace open eyes

GEM

54

Scott,

My support for the fact that salvation is universal is already stated. If it were not universal then we are going to hell (unless you happen to belong to the nation of Israel). I suppose there is free will. If there were not, the Bible would be really rather silly. Let's see, God saved the Israelites, God made the Israelites worship him, God turned their hearts against him, God then punished them for him turning their hearts against him, God saved Israel, repeat, repeat, repeat.

I only see the Bible saying that the only way to be sure of salvation is through Jesus. Maybe others who never knew or heard of Jesus have been saved too? Regardless, I don't see why anybody that is aware of this fact can risk it. Go to Jesus.

55

Hi Tim

I observe your: My support for the fact that salvation is universal is already stated. If it were not universal then we are going to hell (unless you happen to belong to the nation of Israel).

I think I understand what you are saying, ie. that salvation is universally available:

AC 2:17 " `In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams . . . .

AC 2:21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

However, note that there is a particular theological position, called UNIVERSALISM, that in effect argues that all of us, regardless of choices made in this life, will end up in heaven. I think that is problematic:

3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

RO 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

I just note that in context, since we all stumble into sin, persistence in well doing implies pentence and reformation of life. It also seems to me that the implication is that God is not going to condemn us for our honestly acquired ignorance [i.e. those who are informationally BC will be judged by the light they have, as is outlied in jn 3:19 - 21, the key issue in God's verdict is rejection of light when it comes because we cling to evil. That's why for instance I think C S lewis had a point when he told the incident in Narnia of the young Calormene soldier who sincerely served God by what light he knew, i.e. Tash; but on the other side found himself -- to his amazement -- welcomed by Aslan the untamed himself!

Grace

Gordon

56

Hey Gordon,

No, I certainly do not believe in Universalism. Thank you for sharing this with me. It did not occur to me that I could have been implicating this.

57

Tim L, thanks, I would have thought you were advocating (somewhat confusingly) universalism from the last post above. Gordon, thanks for helping clarify the situation. Good example of brotherly care, both of you.

Also, Gordon, good arguments above about inerrancy. I think I'm a hair stricter than you seem to be on the point, but that's easily within tolerances.

I think C. S. Lewis was just a little too influenced by the honest-to-goodness universalist in his life, George MacDonald. I wouldn't be willing to stipulate to the idea that any will be *saved* according to natural light, though I certainly think they will be *judged* by it. However, you have good ground to argue the possibility, and I can hope I'm wrong and God's mercy abounds to His glory in ways I don't know yet.

I can conceive of several other possibilities, too (e.g. meeting Christ upon death, and being judged upon one's response at that point; and some possibilities related to the millennium, for premil types), but none rise anywhere near the level of Biblical support (when they aren't sheer speculation) that I'd be willing to teach. To think about and hope (in the weaker sense?) for, sure--and, like you, I'll exculpate Lewis' fiction on that point.

Cheers,
PGE

58

For those seriously interested in studying all sides of the inerrancy question, I would suggest you listen to an interview with Bart Ehrman that was on "Fresh Air" (with Terry Gross) tonight. You can listen to it at:
freshair.npr.org

Ehrman is plugging his newest book "Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," which is currently at #33 on the best-seller list at amazon.com. You can read reviews at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/ref=pd_ts_b_3/102-5677264-6111353?n=22&s=books&v=glance

Ehrman is chairman of the Religious Studies Department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost living scholars on the text of the New Testament.

While I have not read this book, I have read many of his other works. I understand that this book is written for a popular audience whereas his other books are more academically oriented. IN fact reading Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction" while I was a Bible professor played a key role in my deconversion from Christianity. Ehrman's studies have also led him from fundamentalism to liberal Christianity to "happy agnosticism."

I don't intend to make an extended debate here over the points that Ehrman raises. I'm merely suggesting that if you want to understand why many intelligent, honest, nice people reject inerrancy, read or listen to Ehrman. After all, if inerrancy is true you have nothing to fear from his arguments.

Cheers.

59

All:

Thanks PGE & Tim.

Ex, I think "one of the leading" is of course a very very loose term when we come to deal with so polarised a field as NT studies. On that, I take my first clues from Eta Linnemann and Edwin Yamauchi. For, when the philosphical presuppositions beg the question at the outset for major schools, we should beware of the resulting selective hyperskepticism, which may be paraded as "scientific" and "assured" results!

On points of interest:

1] Been busy over the past couple of days, e.g. here, here and here -- I guess that these will raise some hackles!

2] Now on inerancy, notice what I have done above: set the ladder of thought that has led some all the way to inerrancy as a position, and others to stop off at some stage along the way - many evangleicals I think hols to a sort of restricted inerrancy [inerrant on matters tied tot he core creeedal issues and the gospel more specifically, and/or a collegial view, i.e. one writer can correct peerceived errors or imbalances in another; eg. James and Paul].

My personal position is just that, i.e. I am here reporting what I have seen out there, not taking a stance on the debate. In so doing, I bring out the point that there is a defensible aproach tot he issue, i.e. those who advocate inerrancy are not necessarily one of: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

3] Now on access to salvation, I think we evangelicals need to do a very careful reading of Paul, esp Rom 2:1 - 11:

RO 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things . . . when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

RO 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

--> I think it can be fairly argued from that context that we are all prone to sin, so persistence in well-doing implies a degree of penitence by the light one has -- whether the man with the OT or the Bible as a whole, or a man like Abraham, Melchizedek or Job who encounters God without a prior tradition of enscripturated revelation, or those who have even less light than that, the light of nature and conscience. [Cf Ac 17:29 - 31.]

--> In that context, the key note from Rm 2:8 is "reject[ing] the truth"; i.e. the issue is how do you respond to light when it comes: do you embrace it or cling to evil and flee back into the darkness? (Indeed, Jn 3:19 - 21, cited above is