inerrancy of the New Testament

Discussion in 'Sacred Scripture' started by apologetic, Feb 20, 2017.

  1. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    927
    Likes Received:
    684
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)

    And they also declared things like Third Corinthians to likewise be non-canonical, predating any modern experts which now suddenly have also reached the same opinion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians

    "In the West it was not considered canonical in the 4th century AD, becoming part of the New Testament apocrypha."
     
  2. apologetic

    apologetic Member

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    12
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Fair point. I just don't like the word inerrant. I would rather inspired, true, authoritative or historical. It is just that there are some inconsistencies in Scripture, not many but some. The authors of the four gospels also never said that their own work was inerrant, so in some sense the view that the four gospels are inerrant is not Scriptural. Inspired is therefore preferable. Ultimately we are arguing over language usuage not so much theology.
     
  3. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Saw this meme today. Thought it had bearing on this discussion FB_IMG_1487989345504.jpg
     
    Anglican04, alphaomega, Aidan and 3 others like this.
  4. apologetic

    apologetic Member

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    12
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I'm sure we would agree on almost all essential theological points.

    I think Jesus rose from the dead after three days
    I believe in that it is through grace we are saved
    I think that a mature Christian is charitable
    I believe that it is important to abide by all the moral truths of Scripture
    I believe that judging others puts you endanger of being judged
    I believe in a hell - whether that is a literal place of fire and brimstone I don't know
    I believe in the Trinity
    I believe that a Christian is imbued with the Holy Ghost
    I believe that sex outside marriage is a sin
    ect.

    I just don't like to use the word 'inerrant' or infallible since it isn't Scriptural to describe the bible in that way. Moreover the phrase 'inerrant' implies that the book was completely written by God (which is what Muslims believe about their Koran) when in fact the bible was written by men saved by grace and inspired by God. They weren't mere vessels they were men like us.

    The idea of inerrancy is a relatively new concept - Inerrancy has been much more of an issue in American evangelicalism than in British evangelicalism, inerrancy plays almost no role in British evangelical life. Further still nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16 ... this passage merely says that "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect," or "inerrant," or "infallible," or "all-sufficient." It also doesn't define here what is meant by the term 'scripture' - Paul was likely referring to the Old Testament as the bible as we know it did not exist then. So the view therefore that the bible is inerrant, has no scriptural basis whatsoever.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  5. apologetic

    apologetic Member

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    12
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    If any of you can find a passage that uneqivocally states that the Bible is inerrant or perfect or infallible, I will accept that the bible as inerrant. Pretty straightfoward challenge.
     
  6. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Psalms 12:6: "the words of the LORD are flawless"

    Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm"

    Proverbs 30:5-6: "Every word of God is flawless"


    2 Timothy 3:16: "
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

    2 Peter 1:20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

    John 17:17: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

    Matthew 4:4: "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

    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.

    Revelation 22:18-19 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

    Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    1 Thessalonians 2:13 - For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
     
    alphaomega likes this.
  7. apologetic

    apologetic Member

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    12
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Word of God and the Bible are related but are also obviously seperate things, so none of these quotes support your position unless you can show that the Bible and the Word of God are identical. If you can show that the New and Old Testament is completely and entirely the same thing as the word of God I'll accept these quotes as valid and accept the Bible as inerrant.
     
  8. apologetic

    apologetic Member

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    12
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Word of God is Jesus not the bible - the bible is a collection of writings 'God breathed' i.e. inspired by God but not the same as the Word of God.
     
  9. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Those are private opinions and interpretations. I reject every premise of your last two posts as both false and heretical.

    1. Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of God (which you yourself point out). The bible very explicitly says of itself "this is the Word of the LORD" in more than one place. The early church determined Sacred Scripture to be the canon, that is, the rule and measure of the faith. Tradition has never deviated from the understanding that the bible is the Word of God. In fact this the first time I've ever heard a christian argue that Sacred Scripture is not the Word of God. For this reason alome I can dismiss you out of hand because nothing new is true when it comes to our faith.

    2. I have shown you multiple instances that Sacred Scripture declares itself to be true. Asking me to show something that cannot be interpreted away by one who refuses to believe what these verses affirmatively prove is an impossible task, what you need are not new bible passages but new eyes and possibly a new heart. Sacred scripture is infallible and testifies to that fact. Our Lord also testifies to it. Over and over in the gospels he directs seekers to "search the scriptures" to verify that he was who he says he was. He is truth and would never send someone to a corrupted source in order to prove Himself to him. That would be a greater authority being subservirnt to a lesser one. To be a true follower of Christ is to go where he leads you. Time and time again, the place he leads is to the Sacred Scripture.

    3. The bible is the Word of God written. Our Lord is the Word of God made flesh. Neither one contradicts the other. Nor can they.

    If the bible is the inspired message of God to his church, then it must be a true message because God cannot lie.

    I will pray for your eyes to be opened and the Holy Spirit to guide to the truth brother. God's word is true on every point.
     
    alphaomega, Aidan and Madeline like this.
  10. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    759
    Likes Received:
    951
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    OK. I would like to take some heat out of the debate, partly because I understand something of what is being said on both sides, and because I do get the cultural referential background that apologetic is coming from.

    Anselm Adams was an acclaimed landscape photographer in the United States in the last century. He was accosted by critics who complained to him that there were no people in his photographs. He replied and said 'there are two people in every one of my photographs - there is the person behind the lens who captures the image as it is seen and there is the person viewing the photograph'. There is the matter of how he understood what he was looking at and how he framed the image and organised the camera to capture the image as an expression of how he understood what he was looking at. The person who looked at the image would understand it, and not all people understood the image in the same way. The word photograph means in its root derivation 'drawn with light'.

    There is something of scripture in this idea. We know God, we know anything of God, because God reveals himself, because God has revealed himself in history. The writers of scripture in many and various ways have captured that image as they have understood it and recorded it for us. As we read the text and open our hearts and minds to see what has been captured in this revelation, so the things of God are revealed to us. We are the inheritors of this revelation, and I am prepared to allow that what I see may have a slightly different slant on it to what another sees, and neither of us has to be wrong. Scripture is in a sense like the photograph, drawn with light. Now there are lots of areas where things might go wrong, and we need to Holy Spirit in this process to guide us and keep us on track.

    I am not sure who said it first, but I do understand the criticism 'he uses scripture as a drunk uses a lamppost - more for support than for illumination'. In the Australian context that has been a solid movement in part of our Church which has espoused the view that God wrote scripture, he held the pen and forced the hand with no human input. They have used scripture - as they understand it - more as a club than as a sword - more to defend their narrow views that to shed light, and in my view it has been ugly, unhelpful, and quite damaging to a number of people.

    In this setting I rather wish that @Lowly Layman had not dropped an H-bomb on @apologetic here. I think that what is being railed against is an interpretation which renders John 1:14 as 'and the bible became flesh' and I have it in quotes because I heard it with my own ears. Quote apart from the fact that it is not what the text says, it remains a gross abuse. The is quite a distinction in the Greek between graphos - writing and logos - Word which we in the context of the Johannine passages understand as the second person of the Trinity who existed before existence and was born in flesh of Mary, and lived among us.

    1. I think the point being made by apologetic is to clarify his understanding, and he is possibly railing against what is being presented unhelpfully.
    2. Scripture is true, and is of great value to every Christian. We live in a tradition of faith where we do accept Biblical Criticism and a useful tool in understanding the text. We do like to understand the text in context, to have a mind to the historical and cultural situations that gave birth ti it. This is very different to the Muslim understand of the Koran where not criticism or context is allowed.
    3. Articles 6, 7, and 8 are clearly relevant here, but also 18 and 20.
    I have reflected in the Infographic posted earlier in the thread, and I have developed what I see as the Anglican approach to Scripture Infographic and I share it here.

    AnglicanViewOfScripture.jpg
    Scripture is our foundation document/library in all of this. In it and through it God reveals, and his revelation is recorded, so it is for us both noun and verb. I could say a lot more, however I think I may have said too much already. I am just concerned that there is some misreading of what each other may be saying, and I guess I like peace as the angels proclaimed.
     
    Madeline and Christina like this.
  11. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    I did not call apologetic a heretic. I do not attack people. But that the idea he has presented to us is heretical is a fact. God's word is true. That has been the orthodox teaching of the church since its beginning. To undermine to veracity of Sacred Scripture is to undermine the promises contained therein--to undermine the very gospel itself. This is a serious charge and must be answered with equal seriousness, no matter how impolitic. If I insulted you Philip, I would remind you that my comments were not directed at you unless you harber the same ideas as apologetic. If you do, I hope and pray you will recognize the grave error of your stance as much for your own salvation as for others who you may influence.

    If I insulted you Apologetic, I would tell that was not my intent. I would also remind you that joining a traditional, orthodox Anglican discussion forum and calling into question the highest authority of the Amglican faith not only comes dangerously close to violating the forum's rules, it could be construed as equally insulting to those christians here who truly hold Sacred Scripture in the esteem it is due.

    There can be no compromise on the infallible nature of God's Word. Either it is true or it is not. It is the bedrock of all we know of Christ and his message and the proper measure of the authenticity of all
    Christian experience. I don't know how others feel on the issue, but I must always stand and defend Our Lord's message to His church.
     
    alphaomega, Andy and Madeline like this.
  12. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    759
    Likes Received:
    951
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Psalm 12:6 NRSV
    The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

    Psalm 12:6 ASB Psalter
    The words of the Lord are pure, as silver refined in a crucible : as gold that is seven times purified in the fire

    Psalm 12:7 Coverdale Psalter
    The words of the Lord are pure words * even as the silver, which from the earth is tried, and purified seven times in the fire.

    Psalm 12:6 KJV
    The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Psalm 12:6 Common Worship Psalter
    The words of the Lord are pure words, • like silver refined in the furnace and purified seven times in the fire.

    Psalm 12:6 NIV
    And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.​

    Sorry for the list, however I was trying to track down the translation you were quoting. There is no meteoric shift in meaning, though it perhaps underlines the point I was making when I discussed Ansel Adams above.

    I am not challenging the truth of Scripture. However I am going to ask this question - Do the Thirty Nine Articles endorse the view of scripture as they contain neither the word Infallible or Inerrant?

    My view is that the Thirty Nine Articles present the view that Scripture is Authoritative, and that nothing can be required of a person to be believed that cannot be proved by scripture. They also alert us to the view that one part of Scripture should not be expounded in a manner that is repugnant to another part of scripture. They also refer to Scripture as God's Word written.

    Now as it happens I do believe that the Word of God is infallible, for I believe that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness will never put it out, and I am confident in saying that this view is attested to in Scripture.

    John Wesley described the Bible as infallible in a sermon Freedom of Grace in which he attacked the Calvinistic understanding of Double Predestination in 1739. The idea of Biblical Infallibility grew in the 19th century as a reaction to modernism, and no doubt in part to the rise of Biblical Criticism.

    And as I have said I do believe that the Bible is for us both a record of the revelation of God (noun) and as we read it with open hearts and minds the very revealing of the nature and purpose of God for us (verb). I do not hold a low view of scripture. Scripture indeed is the very foundation against which everything must be tested, if it is to be required of folk that they believe it.

    As of Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has held the view that the Scriptures are free from error in terms of moral and doctrinal teaching.

    My view is that the purpose of Anglicanism is to keep the walls low and Jesus high so that people may see and believe. I worries me that if we add to the requirements (in this case a particular view of scripture) that we are building the walls higher than we need to.

    As you have already pointed out the view of Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms was Sola Scritura which indeed was a view somewhat different to what has developed in the modern era which might be described as Solo Scriptura. The problem we have had in Australia is a powerful group declaring Solo Scriptura and attempting to redefine Anglicanism as a contemporary protestant group endorsing the earlier mentioned doctrine of propositional revelation - which is something the neither I nor @apologetic want to embrace.

    I do understand that there are different battles being fought in the context of Anglican Circles on the North American Continent, and as a result you may not quite see what is being said here as a result of local cultural filters, however I can assure you @Lowly Layman that there is much more that unites us than divides us.
     
    Christina and Madeline like this.
  13. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    953
    Likes Received:
    567
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Accommodation is a good thing. It becomes a bad thing when it involves dilution of core beliefs. Revealed scripture and tradition can not become a curates egg where one choses the appealing bits
     
  14. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    759
    Likes Received:
    951
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Please Expain - to quote an Australian Politician.
     
  15. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    953
    Likes Received:
    567
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Its
    its nice to be tolerant of alternative views but if someone states something contrary to core beliefs then they need to be challenged. Some things cannot be compromised
     
    alphaomega likes this.
  16. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    759
    Likes Received:
    951
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I accept your point. My point however is should the Authority of Scripture as a core belief of Anglicanism be determined to mean Inerrant or Infallible. So what are the core beliefs?
     
  17. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    953
    Likes Received:
    567
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
     
  18. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    953
    Likes Received:
    567
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Don't know what I posted last lol. Philip I can't comment as I'm not AngloCatholic
     
  19. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    759
    Likes Received:
    951
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I normally don't describe myself as an AngloCatholic either. Sometimes I will describe myself as a catholic (notice the case), usually I describe myself as an Anglican, or Anglican and catholic, or fairly orthodox Anglican, and perhaps more recently I coined the use of the term Anglidox denoting Anglicans who have specific views on the filioque clause, as I do, and perhaps a positive perspective on the Orthodox Churches. None of that I see disqualifies you from have a view on the Anglican position in relation to Scripture.
     
    Aidan likes this.
  20. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    I think of myself as AngloCatholic. And on that topic, the Anglican Catholic Church provides the article regarding its view of scripture that I found quite enlightening.

    http://www.anglicancatholic.org/the-bible-is-the-word-of-god?class=greenlink

    With particular relevance to the debate in this thread, I present this portion:

    "The Bible is inerrant in that as God’s inspired word it conveys saving truth and the meaning intended by God when he inspired its authors. God’s purpose quite probably differs in different parts of Scripture. Nevertheless, whatever the divine purpose is for a given text, that purpose most assuredly is inerrantly fulfilled by the text. To discover this purpose and the saving truth intended by God, the interpreter of Scripture must always read with the eyes of the Church. If one reads without the guidance of the Church and her tradition, then God’s purpose in inspiring a given text will not necessarily be fulfilled. The ACC holds that there is a conservative, non-fundamentalist, mean between the poles of extreme literalism and free-floating allegorization. We should neither divorce Scripture from facts, nor push the facts beyond the need to ground necessary doctrine. We should not push the stories too far; nor should we presume to judge the stories as primitive."
     

Share This Page