Is the Bible inerrant?

[RamiC]

If all of the bible is potentially contextual, symbolic, situational, time specific, people specific or with error, than how did we get this far by using it as the foundation of our faith?

"19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."
Ephesians 2 NIV

So, the Bible is not the foundation, according to the Bible.

"Schooling involved doctrinal summaries. Much like memory verses today, they presented the core of the faith, not with the detail of the creeds that emerged after the Council of Nicaea, but with enough content to delineate the most central ideas about God, Jesus, and forgiveness through Jesus' death. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Romans 1:2-4, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 reveal this early church schooling. Singing involved hymns. Philippians 2:5-11 and Colossians 1:15-20 show how much theology was contained in what the earliest church sang. Sacraments involved the teaching presented at baptism and Communion. Here one can think of the words spoken over the Lord's Table (“On the night he was betrayed Jesus took the bread … This is for you”) or the picture of baptism summarized in Romans 6:2–4, which proclaims that Christ has put the old life to death and given new life.

Here is orthodoxy, rooted in the acts of worship that took place each week before the New Testament canon appeared. The church could know its roots because the apostolic teaching showed up in worship." https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/roots-matter

 

[ChubbyCherub]

"19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."
Ephesians 2 NIV

So, the Bible is not the foundation, according to the Bible.

"Schooling involved doctrinal summaries. Much like memory verses today, they presented the core of the faith, not with the detail of the creeds that emerged after the Council of Nicaea, but with enough content to delineate the most central ideas about God, Jesus, and forgiveness through Jesus' death. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Romans 1:2-4, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 reveal this early church schooling. Singing involved hymns. Philippians 2:5-11 and Colossians 1:15-20 show how much theology was contained in what the earliest church sang. Sacraments involved the teaching presented at baptism and Communion. Here one can think of the words spoken over the Lord's Table (“On the night he was betrayed Jesus took the bread … This is for you”) or the picture of baptism summarized in Romans 6:2–4, which proclaims that Christ has put the old life to death and given new life.

Here is orthodoxy, rooted in the acts of worship that took place each week before the New Testament canon appeared. The church could know its roots because the apostolic teaching showed up in worship." https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/roots-matter

Yes, I mistyped when I said it was the foundation because what I meant to say it was the foundation AFTER Jesus' time on earth for those who were not privileged enough to be there when He was.

So, in simple terms, are you agreeing that scripture is required for believers or are you not agreeing? I'm confused because you quote a lot of scripture but seem to contradict its place with your last statement.

Thanks!

 

[Fervent]

If all of the bible is potentially contextual, symbolic, situational, time specific, people specific or with error, than how did we get this far by using it as the foundation of our faith?

Surely, Jesus referred to 'writings' not to appeal only to the Pharisees (there were other people in the world) but as a way to show all that the scriptures were inerrant with regards to prophesying His presence, purpose and authority.

So, we all now dismiss it because ... ? We don't understand? We don't ask the right questions? It suits our narrative? It's overly complex? We seek answers elsewhere? We have failed, as a society, to keep teaching what we once knew? We [fill in the blank]?

Without scripture, how would we even know of the existence of Jesus? Would we just do a, 'trust me bro' moment?

I don't understand this line of thinking at all? What am I missing here?

Why do you think it must be inerrant to be normative and authoritative?

 

[RamiC]

Yes, I mistyped when I said it was the foundation because what I meant to say it was the foundation AFTER Jesus' time on earth for those who were not privileged enough to be there when He was.

So, in simple terms, are you agreeing that scripture is required for believers or are you not agreeing? I'm confused because you quote a lot of scripture but seem to contradict its place with your last statement.

Thanks!

Assuming that you mean this "So, the Bible is not the foundation, according to the Bible.", the Bible is not the foundation of our faith, the foundation would be what something is built on, what is depends on, and Ephesians 2 says it is the "apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

I believe that there are saved people in places where it is so dangerous to own a complete Bible that they have never had one, or only ever had part of a page at a time. There are saved people who do not have their own copy yet, because they only made the prayer that saved them 15 minutes ago, and they have not thought of it or got around to it yet, and there will be people who know the Bible plenty well who are on the I-do-not-know-you side of this "21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV.

As it goes I believe the Bible is the most important collection of books in the universe, but that is because it was written, compiled, and made available by people who were inspired by God to do so. However, it is not God, who saves souls, and does not necessarily require someone to possess a Bible in order to do so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If all of the bible is potentially contextual, symbolic, situational, time specific, people specific or with error, than how did we get this far by using it as the foundation of our faith?

Surely, Jesus referred to 'writings' not to appeal only to the Pharisees (there were other people in the world) but as a way to show all that the scriptures were inerrant with regards to prophesying His presence, purpose and authority.

So, we all now dismiss it because ... ? We don't understand? We don't ask the right questions? It suits our narrative? It's overly complex? We seek answers elsewhere? We have failed, as a society, to keep teaching what we once knew? We [fill in the blank]?

Without scripture, how would we even know of the existence of Jesus? Would we just do a, 'trust me bro' moment?

I don't understand this line of thinking at all? What am I missing here?

The only thing you're missing is the fact that, whatever was historically taking place socially and spiritually to transmit the Original Kerygma during the first 20-30 years of the Christian faith is also, essentially, what is still taking place today. The difference is that the forms of media have been differentiated, but it's still all made of God's prompting, human rational thought and social testimony carried along within a variety of conceptual frameworks. Of course, the collection of documents we call 'The New Testament' is an expression and important part of that ongoing testimony.

 

[fhansen]

So, do you think the Bible is completely without error in everything it touches on?

I do believe the Bible is infallible, but idk if I would go to say that it is entirely without error on matters of history, details, etc. The point is to point people to Christ. It's not meant to be a collection of raw information to mine through.

I do think Scripture is God breathed, but unsure whether I lean towards verbal plenary inspiration or dynamic inspiration.

What about you?

The focus of the Bible is not, for example, science first of all, but salvation. I think the wisest teaching on this matter is summarized in a catechism teaching I’m familiar with:

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

 

[Fervent]

Of course, the collection of documents we call 'The New Testament' is an expression and important part of that ongoing testimony.

I'd say that's an understatement, but @RamiC seems to have the right idea that it is because it's the testimony of the prophets and apostles that it has the authority it does. It is the closest thing we have to conversing with the apostles and prophets to get their insight and the documents are authoritative and the central normative element of the faith precisely because of their apostolic heritage. Not to step on your toes, because you're absolutely right about the Kerygma being an ongoing reality as God acts in the world through His church in all its various expressions but the NT documents are well beyond simply important and can rightfully be considered foundational in some sense due to their apostolic origins.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Why do you think it must be inerrant to be normative and authoritative?

Because the word of God, as it came from Him, is inerrant. If the only evidence we have is the Bible, which we refer to as the word of God, then it stands to reason that it should be inerrant and, as such, 'normative and authoritative'.

 

[Fervent]

Because the word of God, as it came from Him, is inerrant. If the only evidence we have is the Bible, which we refer to as the word of God, then it stands to reason that it should be inerrant and, as such, 'normative and authoritative'.

This doesn't address the question, it's just an assertion. Especially since the Bible is not the Word of God, the Word of God is the 2nd person of the Trinity. The Bible is an icon of the Word of God, and conveying Divine attributes to a book to me reeks of idolatry.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Assuming that you mean this "So, the Bible is not the foundation, according to the Bible.", the Bible is not the foundation of our faith, the foundation would be what something is built on, what is depends on, and Ephesians 2 says it is the "apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

I believe that there are saved people in places where it is so dangerous to own a complete Bible that they have never had one, or only ever had part of a page at a time. There are saved people who do not have their own copy yet, because they only made the prayer that saved them 15 minutes ago, and they have not thought of it or got around to it yet, and there will be people who know the Bible plenty well who are on the I-do-not-know-you side of this "21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV.

As it goes I believe the Bible is the most important collection of books in the universe, but that is because it was written, compiled, and made available by people who were inspired by God to do so. However, it is not God, who saves souls, and does not necessarily require someone to possess a Bible in order to do so.

I'm not saying that one needs to have the bible to be saved, Jesus Christ's death on the cross saved us, but it is through the bible that we learned this and share the message. Or, conversely, it is through the bible that others learned it and shared it with us.

If you're saying that we don't need the bible for this message, which I understand (to a point), then to what do we refer to for a) evidence that Jesus existed b) reference as to why He existed c) why this should matter to us at all etc. d) how to testify to others

Are you suggesting we all have inherent knowledge of these facts and that we should just rely on whispers throughout the centuries? Surely, these things had to be recorded for us to use to refer to for our own knowledge and so that we can spread the word with certainty and consistency?

Otherwise, do we pick and choose the text we believe, refer to or acknowledge depending on our aims?

It doesn't make sense.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

This doesn't address the question, it's just an assertion. Especially since the Bible is not the Word of God, the Word of God is the 2nd person of the Trinity. The Bible is an icon of the Word of God, and conveying Divine attributes to a book to me reeks of idolatry.

2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-Breathed

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

[ChubbyCherub]

This doesn't address the question, it's just an assertion. Especially since the Bible is not the Word of God, the Word of God is the 2nd person of the Trinity. The Bible is an icon of the Word of God, and conveying Divine attributes to a book to me reeks of idolatry.

I think you are in grave error. Hopefully the above assists.

 

[Fervent]

I think you are in grave error. Hopefully the above assists.

Nope, it is the ahistorical theology that developed in the 19th century by Charles Hodge that is in grave error not the traditional understanding of Scripture.

As for the verse you posted, it doesn't mean what you're trying to proof text it to mean since it's not about inspiration but about being life-giving from the action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[RamiC]

If you're saying that we don't need the bible for this message, which I understand (to a point), then to what do we refer to for a) evidence that Jesus existed b) reference as to why He existed c) why this should matter to us at all etc. d) how to testify to others

I got it from others, Christian people, all of the things about which you are asking. They got it from others themselves. This has been going on since "2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them." Acts 2 NIV Jesus is alive, He could not be alive if He never existed, He can prove it, it is called "prayer", that is how He can prove it. Now that was me pointing out to you that the Bible records how the faith has survived all this time, the Holy Spirit, that is how, that is when the church was born, and it has been going on the whole time.

That, as I already tried to say, is how we ended up with the Bible...the faith was already there or we have no Bible.

Nothing is more important than knowing if what the Bible says is true, so how do you suggest people find that out?

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Nope, it is the ahistorical theology that developed in the 19th century by Charles Hodge that is in grave error not the traditional understanding of Scripture.

As for the verse you posted, it doesn't mean what you're trying to proof text it to mean since it's not about inspiration but about being life-giving from the action of the Holy Spirit.

What Does 2 Timothy 3:16 Mean?

As I said, I think you are in grave error but I will pray for you. God bless.

 

[Fervent]

What Does 2 Timothy 3:16 Mean?

As I said, I think you are in grave error but I will pray for you. God bless.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't actually demonstrate the meaning of that verse nor does it interact with scholarship on the term pneumotheos in its historical context.

You can think I'm in grave error, but you're basing that on erroneous traditions that have developed recently and aren't defensible against even a moderate degree of skepticism.

 

[fhansen]

Another related teaching FWIW:

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures." (Luke 12:45).

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I got it from others, Christian people, all of the things about which you are asking. They got it from others themselves. This has been going on since "2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them." Acts 2 NIV Jesus is alive, He could not be alive if He never existed, He can prove it, it is called "prayer", that is how He can prove it. Now that was me pointing out to you that the Bible records how the faith has survived all this time, the Holy Spirit, that is how, that is when the church was born, and it has been going on the whole time.

That, as I already tried to say, is how we ended up with the Bible...the faith was already there or we have no Bible.

Nothing is more important than knowing if what the Bible says is true, so how do you suggest people find that out?

This is very circular. I am not disagreeing about the Holy Spirit, or the path to salvation, but what I don't agree with is calling the bible 'a book' that is not inerrant on the basis you have provided.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that we have no reference point that has validity, due to its many errors, but you keep quoting this erroneous 'book'.

Is this what being a moderate Christian is about? I didn't realize that I was posting under a theological debate thread, because I don't normally engage in those things since my position is that the bible is inerrant, due to the scripture I provided above amongst other reasons. There is no debate for me.

 

[RamiC]

I think you are in grave error. Hopefully the above assists.

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it." John 1 NIV

I am afraid the Bible suggests that Fervent is right. "the Word" is a "He" and was with God from the start.

If you believe that the Bible is infallible, you clearly do not think there is a fault with John 1 1-5 ?

 

[ChubbyCherub]

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it." John 1 NIV

I am afraid the Bible suggests that Fervent is right. "the Word" is a "He" and was with God from the start.

If you believe that the Bible is infallible, you clearly do not think there is a fault with John 1 1-5 ?

And so we move onto 2 Timothy 3:16.

I believe both scriptures.

So......?