Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Rexlion, Jun 16, 2020.
Because the word embraces the concept. That should be obvious.
I showed otherwise. Why quibble?
I could quote scriptures which refer to the Spirit of Christ rather than saying the Holy Spirit, etc. They are one God, however. No point in making a mountain out of a mole hill.
On the other hand, if you wish to start a tiff over unreliability of the early fathers, why not start a new thread?
The word carries 'baggage' and carries more than just, the concept, as you must know full well.
The truth is worth 'quibbling' over. Your nation's current predicament, watched gleefully by its enemies and sorrowfully by its friends all over the world, has resulted from too few challenging perversions of the truth whenever it has been cunningly relaced by various 'alternatives'.
I agree, it's not an issue worth falling out about.
Augustine of Hippo was not 'right' about everything, even though the sentence you quoted can rightly be interpreted the way you suggest. A literal reading of it though does not indicate that Augustine was specifically thinking trinitarily when he wrote it.
The word "inerrant" contains more than the concept of inerrancy? What an interesting notion. Feel free to expound at great length.
On this, please don't bother expounding! Definitely off-topic.
When a preacher stands before a congregation, slaps the black leather bound bible he holds in his other hand and waves it at his 'flock' shouting "This is the INERRANT Word of God", he is not merely conveying the concept that the bible is inspired and uselful for instruction and the refutation of error. He is also deliberately often conveying the impression that everthing HE says is IRREFUTABLE.
Oh! Well, let me try that. (Picturing self at the lectern)... Jesus said, in Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." And because I'm quoting the inerrant Bible, everything I say is irrefutable!
How did that go over? Anyone believe that I'm irrefutable?
Didn't think so.
Now, if you'd said that the preacher is conveying the impression that everything the Bible says is irrefutable, I think you'd have the right of it.
Hrm, that seems the verbatim definition of inspiration, although I'm not an expert here.
It looks to me like these are all statements about the perfection of Scripture, rather than a late-19th century definition of inerrancy.
Balaam's donkey, yeah it's quite unknown whether that was a factual story. And if it wasn't, then what does it mean to say that that a fictional story is "inerrant"?
It doesn't seem like St. Augustine was painting himself into a corner where every statement of Scripture had to be measured by a factual ruler. This would shoot all the metaphors, counterfactuals, and parables out the window.
I think the main reason people fight for the word "inerrancy", is because if they give that up, then it would mean that the Scripture is imperfect. But if we establish the perfection of Scripture up-front, then the various statements within Scripture can have varying degrees of scientific accuracy, and that wouldn't worry us. Why should it, when we had already agreed up-front that it was perfect?
Very well read, but the delivery was a bit wooden.
I'd have given this two likes, were that possible. Well said sir.
The Bible says "All Cretans are liars". Is that an inerrant statement we wonder, or can there be another explanation for it than simply as a statement of 'fact'. Tit.1:12-13. Are we to assume then that everyone who lives in Crete or ever has lived in Crete is a liar or else the bible contains an erronious statement?
At this point Augustine is specifically discussing the Four Canonical Gospels, and specifically the Words of Jesus and the recorded actions of Jesus we find in the Four Canonical Gospels. I don't for one moment doubt that Augustine held a high view of Scripture, however I would affirm that one may hold a high view of Scripture without needing to affirm inerrancy, infallibility, or the like.
In scripture we encounter Jesus - and as such it is a vehicle for us of eternal truth. I can affirm that clearly without having to endorse inerrancy.
Tiffy is correct in stating that the term is loaded with various connotations. It is really a politicized term that can serve as a benchmark as to whether one is conservative or serious about the Bible or a literalist or whatever. After I studied some of the writings of the Evangelicals that love this term I came to understand that is nearly meaningless. The mainstream Evangelicals throw in a little caveat that makes it so. Let me quote Wayne Grudem's definition of inerrancy with a bit of underlining:
The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.
Who among these scholars has seen the original manuscripts? The whole debate is a straw man.
Well, except for the KJV only people who claim inerrancy for that translation of Scripture. That's its own misguided cult.
Is that why forum members keep throwing torches at it?
People who live in grass houses shouldn't throw torches.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but... if Bible "inerrancy" could only apply to the original manuscripts, wouldn't the same logic dictate that the characteristics "inspired," "perfect," "without error," and "word of God" also can only apply to the original manuscripts?
Not necessarily. When the bible is translated 'faithfully' into another language understood by someone who understands that language, the message it contains remains exactly the message that the originals contained. THAT is the word of God. That is the spirit of Christ. That is the TRUTH sent from above. It is a spiritual communication from God to the spirit of the reader. The bible is not just a book. A faithful translation is as capable on conveying God's message as was the original. I believe The Holy Spirit has seen to that. I say was, because we no longer have any of the originals.
That principle would apply equally to inerrancy, then; if (assuming for discussion's sake) the original manuscript was inerrant, then the faithful translation by someone who understands the language would also be inerrant.
Once again it depends what you mean by inerrant. Do you believe it is inerrantly true that all inhabitants of Crete and everyone born there, are liars?
If not, that statement is in error. In any literal kind of sense.
One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Titus 1:12-13a. NKJV
You seem to have missed the "assuming for discussion's sake" part. Living up to your moniker, I see.
So for discussion's sake, do you, a person who has championed the cause of biblical inerrancy, believe that the statement, "One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true." as it stands, without any caveats, must be literally, accurately, true because it is inerrant, because it appears in The Holy Bible?
By the way 'Tiffy" is short for Artificer. Gen.4:22, Isa.3:3, (A skilled technician R.N.)