Biblical Inerrancy

[OldWiseGuy]

Solomon had this to say about that.

Ecc1:9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

In his day this was probably true. He wrote long before the modern age.

If as you say, the Bible does not address every situation, then God must not have been aware of the things that would happen in this age, that would mean God is impotent.

God addresses every situation in principle, which is revealed through the Holy Spirit, not the written word.

What are some of the major problems you speak of, we face today, that the Holy Spirit cannot use the Bible to Teach, Guide and bring to our Remembrance?

Many problems are addressed in principle in the bible, but require specific action that must be guided by the Spirit. Most often people take these problems to their ministry for guidance. If the bible spelled out all the answers this would not be necessary. It must also be remembered that most Christians don't understand written bible instructions, much less the urgings of the Spirit.

A good example of problems that exist today that didn't in apostolic times is sickness and healthcare. We no longer go to the church for healing but to the hospital. There are no mass healings being done by the church as in those days. I had an ear problem once and wished to be anointed for it. The deacon in charge of this was surprised that I hadn't seen a doctor about it and recommended that I do so (he did anoint me and prayed for my healing).

 

[JIMINZ]

(he did anoint me and prayed for my healing).

.
Were you at that point healed?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.
Were you at that point healed?

No. It took my doctor to clear my ears of impacted wax.

 

[DeaconDean]

In 1742, Baptists in Philadelphia said:

"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience;"

It wasn't until sometime later that "inerrant" was introduced.

What this means simply out is that if you follow what the scriptures teach, you cannot err.

But having said that, "infallible" is a stronger wording than "inerrant".

But either way, if scriptures did have "errors" or were "fallible" they would not be the Word of God, as revealed to the writers of the New Testament by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

We also have this:

"For I am the LORD, I change not;" -Mal. 3:6 (KJV)

The God of the Old Testament, is the God of the New Testament.

If His word in the OT era meant what it said, then His word now means what it means. It don't change.

Times and people change, God and His word do not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[lismore]

Hello. I was brought up Southern Baptist and I still have like the denomination, but I don't know if I can really call myself a Baptist anymore as there are some things I disagree with, such as biblical inerrancy and the ordinances.

Hello Pilgrim. If someone begins to try and re-interpret scripture based on outside factors, such as peer pressure from the world, then it leads to very shaky ground IMO. If you loose the authority of scripture then you have no authority at all. God Bless.

 

[twin1954]

Hello. I was brought up Southern Baptist and I still have like the denomination, but I don't know if I can really call myself a Baptist anymore as there are some things I disagree with, such as biblical inerrancy and the ordinances.

I do believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore useful in all matters regarding salvation, teaching, etc. However, I think it is important that we consider that the writers also did not know as much about our world as we do now, and a lot of theological views (such as not allowing female pastors) could have been part of a cultural reason that was relevant to the ancient Mediterranean, but does not apply to us in today's Western society. I think that though the Bible is inspired and can show us the way to salvation, there were political and other not-so-justifiable reasons for why certain books and verses are a certain way. I don't know if I'm explaining it well, but my view of the Bible is closer to the conservative Quaker stance. I'm just wondering if being a Baptist requires a belief in biblical inerrancy.

As for the ordinances, I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree with Quakers that the ritual observance of them aren't strictly necessary, and that they are more spiritual in nature. However, I don't necessarily think it is wrong to practice water baptism or actually drink the grape juice and eat bread. If the ordinances have to be practiced, then I agree with the Baptist view.

The problem with your view is who gets to decide which parts are inspired and which parts aren't. That leads to very many theological problems as well. We simply do not get to decide which parts of the Bible we will believe and follow and which parts we won't. That is rebellion not faith.

Either we believe the Bible or we don't. There really is no middle ground.

As for the ordinances we are commanded to observe them. They are an important part of worship and obedience.

 

[Applekrate]

Wow! What agreat thread and great replies! Reading this will help me in my walk when confronted by more liberal 'Christians'

 

[Basil the Great]

Faithful Pilgrim, have you checked out the American Baptist Convention? I believe your theological views would be a better fit there, than the Southern Baptist Convention. Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention years ago and joined the American Baptist Convention, because of his commitment to human rights and disagreeing with the churches stances on some of the issues you raise.

I was not aware that Jimmy left the SBC for the ABC. My late great aunt worked for the ABC years ago.

 

[FireDragon76]

I was not aware that Jimmy left the SBC for the ABC. My late great aunt worked for the ABC years ago.

Carter left the SBC because of his particular beliefs about gay rights and other cultural issues.

Incidentally, the TV celebrity chef, Alton Brown, also left the SBC a few years ago for the same reasons. Many people were not even aware he was a dedicated evangelical Christian- I certainly was not.

 

[DeaconDean]

I was not aware that Jimmy left the SBC for the ABC. My late great aunt worked for the ABC years ago.

In 2000, when the issue over "homosexuals" and contributions to the "World Baptist Association" came into argument, Jimmy Carter left because of the SBC's stance on "gay Christians". He took a more "liberal" stand.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[FireDragon76]

Is anybody familiar with what denomination David P Gushee is part of? I tried looking him up but couldn't find any information, other than he is a Baptist.