Worship Leaders Network | Worship Leader Forum | Worship Leader Resources & Jobs
Biblical Inerrancy?
I'm going to open a can of worms here...
What's your take on Biblical Inerrancy?
Biblical Inerrancy: The beliefe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are inspired of God, are without error in the original writings, and are the supreme and final authority for faith and life.
So what do you think? Also, just for fun tell us what your educational background is.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Lyle on -
Yes... Yes it is...
-
Permalink Reply by Greg Newhouse on
-
Here, I'd like to throw a match. I'd add to your statement:
In addition to being without error, the scriptures are complete for purposes of teaching and reproof. This means, among other things, that prohibitive doctrines based on the absence of any recorded example go beyond what is written. You may have extra-biblical convictions about matters of personal holiness, extra-biblical instructions regarding norms of expected behavior as a member of an assembly, but in no circumstance or jurisdiction do these become the equivalent of scriptural commands.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Lyle on
-
So are you thinking Papacy? And Church tradition?
-
-
I suppose I would include ex cathedra inerrancy of the pope's pronouncements, the celibate priesthood, and certain of the Catholic sacraments as extra-biblical traditions. The matter of various church traditions and instructions vs. biblically ordained practice is worthy of more extensive examination bit by bit, though. I don't think I'd try it in the body of a single post. I'm not questioning the pope's right to give instruction and advice concerning faith and practice for those within his sphere of responsibility, just the concept of giving those pronouncements the authority of scripture.
-
Permalink Reply by Stevo on -
Ah, so let me fan it a bit - you can't limit it to purposes of teaching and reproof. It's a phenomenological book written from the point of the human author, so it's also historically accurate in that respect. Further to your point, I think you can extrapolate beyond specific commands to generalities.
Wow - maybe we need some examples.
-
-
One example to start: a certain denomination uses the argument from silence in the NT to pronounce instrumental participation in worship as an unacceptable practice bordering on abomination. Though they've consistently and vigorously defended this position for many years, the twists of scripture that they have to go through to get there are troubling to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Lyle on
-
Church of Christ?
-
-
Yes. I used that one as an example of the general concept, hence I didn't name the particular denomination. We all seem to have different ingredients to our faith plus recipes. Also, I think this concept of inerrancy can be discussed quite separately from literalism, though in some circles it's quite difficult to pry them apart. Once a passage gets picked out as symbolic or cultural rather than literal, it's difficult to keep all other passages from shouting "me too!", allowing scriptural authority for faith and life to dissolve into into sort of a relativistic puddle of goo. That's why I Cor 11 is so difficult. Without a certain amount of freedom from point by point adherence to a punitive behavioral code, passages like this expand to form a list of required and prohibited behaviors. Mix in a little OT rigidity, and you have <dramatic pause> The Law Part II. Sola fide means exactly that: Faith Alone. Am I contradicting myself by seeing scripture as final authority and then claiming this? I don't think so. Paul didn't think so. And James isn't claiming a doctrine of works salvation, just pointing out that faith bears fruit. The fruit doesn't save, but a tree planted in the right soil will bear it according to the type of the tree and the depth of the root.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Lyle on
-
That's why I Cor 11 is so difficult. Without a certain amount of freedom from point by point adherence to a punitive behavioral code, passages like this expand to form a list of required and prohibited behaviors.
That's not an issue of inerrancy... That's an issue of cultural contextualization. Incidentally, I think those who hold fast to 1 Cor 11 stand on much safer ground then those of us who claim that it's cultural. We can only make an educated guess and hope that we are right. They can practice exactly what the Word says and know they are getting it right.
-
-
That's why I separated inerrancy from literalism. That brings up another branch offshoot of inerrancy: What do the scriptures read like to one who has studied enough Greek, Hebrew and Latin to know when the translators gave it their best shot, but punted? The NIV is not my favorite, but at least there are notes here and there in the text that seem to say, "We have no idea what this idiomatic phrase means, but this is our best estimate." I'd like to have been there when the KJV was translated to see what was debated, how they determined the clear meaning, and how they decided what to say, like your video above. Sometimes when comparing the NT of the Authorized Version to the earlier work of Tyndale, I'm reminded of a quote by an old time chess grandmaster: "This is both new and good, but what's good is not new, and what's new is not good." Also, are there contextual clues in classical writing that is contemporary with the NT which help? The part in our passage about coverings has the phrase at the end which can be translated, "We have no other custom.", as well as, "We have no such custom." On that phrase has hung a whole pile of discussion, argument, and bad feeling right here on this board.
Welcome to
Worship The Rock - Worship Leader Forum & Social Network
Hot This Week
Worship Leader Links
© 2012 Created by Phil Williams.
