Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
On the whole, the 19 articles provide a more restrictive understanding of inerrancy than is often intended when it gets used as part of theological debates (on topics other than inerrancy).
But there are a few specific statements that seem a bit of a stretch to me. For example, #6:
I generally agree with the second sentence, most heartily with the last part, yet with some concern on the first part.
And that concern is because the first sentence contains the unnecessary declaration, "down to the very words of the original." I find nothing that makes this statement true or false. It is a preferred position for those who wrote these articles. But I find no support, or for that matter, need for this to be absolutely true. Since virtually every word has multiple meanings, even if only in flavor relative to the primary meaning, the certainty of the speculations that arise from the parsing of individual words is too often the source of the multitude of variants of understanding.
|
Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it and that "not one jot or tittle" would pass away from the law (Luke 16:17 and Matt 5:18). Now I think it is very reasonable to interpret this word as referring down to the very words of the original. I would personally think that a jot or tittle is even more restrictive than that. So I think there is certainly Scriptural support for this position.
To say that something in the OT would be fulfilled indicates that it was not spoken in error, to say that it would be fulfilled down the very last jot and tittle is as restrictive as you can get. So to my understanding this verse does apply to the concept of the Bible being inerrant.