Is The Bible Inerrant?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

That's too true. There is never enough because we never really get it.

If the apostle wrote, "We see darkly", how much more we all!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

If the apostle wrote, "We see darkly", how much more we all!

That we see darkly is why those like Lee, and Nee, can build something like the local church movement.

Cuz they acted like they didn't see darkly, but crystal clearly.

But it's our fault. We're the ones that bought into that they didn't see as darkly as all the rest of us. They tricked us with the Bible ... using it to sound like their speaking was from the very words of God.

Looking back it now appears to me that is was a sleight-of-mind-now-you-see-it-now-you-don't kind of trick.

It's a tried and true method of attracting a following. And has been used down thru the ages. That, speaking the Bible is God's present and new speaking on the earth. Hey, it sounds good. It's the Bible, the very Word of God.

But the disappointment, for me, was as great as, well, >The Great Disappoint<.

[zeek]

I have rarely seen explanations for how the Bible is inerrant. It is usually simply asserted that such is the case and that such assertion must be accepted on faith. II Timothy 3:16 is cited to support the proposition, but again no explanation is provided for how it works. Witness lee did attempt an explanation on the basis of the principle of incarnation by which I understood that God was somehow incarnating himself in the Biblical writers. He may have admitted that this might be a temporary or conditional phenomenon of the Spirit in some cases. I can't recall at what conference or training he taught this. I don't remember what texts he used to support his claim, but, it might well have been Galatians 2:20 with the inference that Christ is incarnating in Paul. Apologies in advance to everyone on all sides of the issue if my memory is mistaken.

[OBW]

As has been stated by some recently, there are things that we can use our good minds to deduce. But there are parts that we can only accept by faith. And other parts that we cannot even understand and can only accept that what it actually means is really the truth.

The main thing about a book like the Bible (ignoring the part about it being written by the actual God of the universe) is that it is true to those of us who believe. We believe in God because we believe in God. This almost sounds postmodern because it is only true for those who believe that it is true. By that, I mean that it is accepted as true and is given place to guide us in the ways that we believe are true because we believe.

I am not saying that it is not true to those who don't believe. But if they don't believe, in this life, they don't believe. When (as we understand and believe) each of our lives ends (with or without the end of times) they will discover that what we have said was true was actually true.

If you try to use inerrancy on an unbeliever, it is pointless. They don't believe any of it, so making a claim about how accurate it really is seems kind of stupid. With the exception of some of the most liberal of Christians, if you use the inerrancy argument on another believer, what does it mean? We all believe. And we believe the Bible. So what is the point?

The point is to lay claim to a particular interpretation of a particular passage as meaning a specific thing as opposed to another specific thing that some other people think it means. So it is not really about the accuracy of the Bible, but the accuracy of our interpretation. And that claim is made out to be part of the Bible through your claim of inerrancy.

And this results in the classic error of begging the question. The issue at hand is the interpretation of the Bible. One side claims that their interpretation is simply the Bible while the other is not. They are forcing their interpretation — not by working through the words, history, hermeneutics, etc., but by declaring that it is simply so. (Sounds a lot like Nee and Lee.)

Inerrancy is a ruse to win an argument without making an argument. Just state that your position is God-ordained and walk away.

In short, no matter how we want to understand the accuracy, inerrancy, etc., of the Bible, the only really important part is faith in Christ and obedience to his words. That might seem to insist on knowing what is really right. But it seems that the parts that are really important don't need that kind of rubbish to prop it up. And the parts that people think do need it still don't because we have faith, not scientific proof.

[OBW]

And in the mean time, we don't all agree on everything and we live by the faith we have.

I recently said that we should let the theologians do the bickering over the minors of the faith. We should be one with all our brothers and sisters in Christ. Not saying we all have to agree on style of meeting/worship, or on those minors. But we should major on the majors when it comes to how we treat our fellow believer. Just as we should then treat the unbeliever (our neighbor) the very same way.

Among the believers we should have the attitude that belief is the key. The forms and traditions are not.

If we lift hands and shout, or sing Kyrie
Sing hymns of praise or quietly pray
May your kingdom come, your will be done
Here

Add to that if we meet in a home, or a rented school cafeteria. If we sit in pews and listen to organ/choir-led music, or a praise band. If we are somewhat free in form, or follow a scripted liturgy. If we pass around little crackers and plastic cups, or file to the front to take a wafer and dip it in juice or have a preacher/priest put it on your tongue.

All of this fits within the Bible. I absolutely believe the Bible. It just doesn't have the answer to everything. Except that it provides a more reliable view of Jesus than me and my private prayers could ever do.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Inerrancy is a ruse to win an argument without making an argument. Just state that your position is God-ordained and walk away.

Yes, the doctrine of inerrancy requires that apparent textual anomalies must either be denied or explained as errors of human understanding rather than flaws in the text itself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, the doctrine of inerrancy requires that apparent textual anomalies must either be denied or explained as errors of human understanding rather than flaws in the text itself.

Well if we're gonna talk inerrancy of the Bible, we have to use the Bible to prove it. Right? Or our answers will be extra-Biblical.

Please somebody prove me wrong, but I can only find hints enough to provoke my imagination into extra-Bible answers, explanations, and conclusions concerning the matter of Biblical inerrancy..

There's no well defined doctrine on inerrancy in the Bible, that's for sure. So our conclusions of certitude, as some have, are extra-Biblical.

Please, somebody take me down on this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well if we're gonna talk inerrancy of the Bible, we have to use the Bible to prove it. Right?

Not really. We have to figure out how whatever the Bible says is historically, scientifically, socially, philosophically, etc., true in every way. Might be able to get the philosophical and social parts to at least be true in a broad sense, but not everyone will agree. Whatever it says about science was never intended as an accurate, detailed explanation of something scientific, but was instead spoken within the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people to whom it was written. At some level, even some of the history is probably compressed.

So in some people's minds, the Bible can never be inerrant in the way the people who argue about inerrancy claim that it has to be.

In short, the best talk about inerrancy is the one in which we conclude that it is itself a colored lens that skews (or skewers) the actual truth that is in the Bible. And in the process, kick it to the curb with Nee and Lee (and a lot of others).