Is The Bible Inerrant?

[OBW]

Before I "devise" a meaningful definition of inerrant, I want to note that there are three who have been posting here that are complaining elsewhere that they have been warned concerning off-topic posts while this thread has turned to a series on sports. While the rest of their complaints seem rather hollow, they do have a point here. Off topic is off topic. Just because you like one off-topic and not another is not really a differentiator.

But that is too simplistic. It was never completely about on v off topic. It was about some of the core assumptions being challenged. Not quite to the point of "is there God" but problematic.

Which brings me to "inerrancy" again.

While I may actually buy into some of the 19 articles of inerrancy listed earlier, for me, inerrancy is really at the level of "it is the revelation of God" or "it is not the revelation of God." We can legitimately disagree about what something means. But if you suggest that it is simply wrong that it is there to argue about, then you have crossed the line. It is inerrant because it is God's word. The only error is in what we do with it.

And anytime we make a declaration of inerrancy about what a passage means, we have moved the discussion from the scripture being God's word to my version of what it means being God's word. And at that point, it is no longer inerrant. Not because God's word has error, but because we are declaring something other than God's word to be God's word.

So, as long as the underlying assumption is that God's word is God's word and the only thing up for question is what it means, then "inerrant" is virtually pointless. We already agree that the word is without error. We are now mired in how to understand it.

And that is fraught with error. But also full of truth. Some would then declare that understanding scripture is hopeless because we are all fallen, blinded, error-prone people.

But the Spirit enlightens.

In my personal life, He enlightens me through my reading in the word, in listening to and reading healthy teaching, and in my circumstances as those sometimes faint lights become brighter when given real application.

In terms of the major "doctrines" and teachings, the Spirit enlightens through the working of the church. The RCC has the practice wrong, but the idea right. The church is a much better arbitrator of truth than the scripture (sola scriptura) because the scripture does not look at you with a puzzled face when you wander off the reservation of sound understanding. Complain about hierarchies or clergy all you want. It was the general discussion, led by the apostles (including James) that directed freedom from the Jewish rituals.

You can argue that it should have been obvious. But based on what? A writing by Paul? And if you listen to Lee, you would be convinced that even the righteous law was no longer in play. You should be free to be caught in sin until you have sufficient "dispensing" to stand against it. Heaven forbid that you read somewhere that you should not steal or commit adultery and just obey.

We may now see through the error that Lee taught us. But is that any more or less based on a poor reading than someone reading that the Jewish rituals should remain? I don't believe that Jesus said it was terminated. So how "obvious" was it really? If it was really so obvious, there would never have been a counsel in Jerusalem over it. They would have gotten Paul's letter and just had a quick conference to set a bunch of people straight. No need to discuss.

Still, the scripture is without error. But that is essentially stipulated. The only place that would matter would be in discussions with some who want to create a "sort of" church or with those who have not yet come to believe in the One revealed in that scripture.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Off topic is off topic. Just because you like one off-topic and not another is not really a differentiator.

*** Moderator Note ***

I disagree. A few side posts about a light subject is just being friendly. Trying to change the subject of the thread is another thing.

I'm not going to moderate so severely as to correct people over a few light posts, especially if the people involved have a good track record. But attempting to steer a thread to another subject because one doesn't like the current one is a problem that I sometimes must address.

Thanks for your input.