How crucial is Biblical Inerrancy to being Reformed?

[desmalia]

I read something interesting. I really should read Calvin for myself though. See here for full article: Did death occur before the Fall? | BioLogos

Interesting

I've frequently read articles on the biologos site, and recommend extreme caution. This group is so determined to bring TE into the church that they deny the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, a literal Adam and Eve, flood, etc. There is a massive amount of twisting done to defend the position. They love to quote the likes of N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis and others to support their positions. When they deal with Calvin, Luther, etc. (and especially the Bible!) be careful to do the research for yourself, as what they say is often taken largely out of context. They say they are giving equal authority to science and the Bible (which is already a problem), but in fact, modern scientific theory governs how they personally interpret (or throw out portions of) the Bible. Further, all of this is in an effort to make people who want some connection to the church feel comfortable in their ideas about evolution and anything else that is unorthodox. Looking a little deeper, there is a direct connection to very liberal ideologies such as egalitarianism, gay "marriage", universalism, etc. It's all about the self esteem and feeling comfortable in one's religion, not about encountering a holy God. Sorry if that sounds like a rant, but it hits close to home for me and I am extremely concerned about their agenda.

 

[drjean]

The church I just joined pulled out of the USA for liberal issues, and they joined the EPC...wanting to keep their female office holders. However, the minister and his wife still are liberal regarding the inerrancy of the Scriptures. While I know that translations from the "original" languages suffer (such as Greek to English mainly because of lack of descriptive words) the Word of God is inerrant.

On the other topic, I believe both eventual physical and immediate spiritual death is a result of the "fall."

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

On the other topic, I believe both eventual physical and immediate spiritual death is a result of the "fall."

I do too. I'm a YEC, but rarely broadcast it or get into the Creationism debate. Couple of days ago though, found myself responding to an atheist and addressing the presuppositions of evolution, while reminding them of the necessary presuppositions of Science which their worldview cannot account for. Lately, I'm feeling more drawn to the Science debate, than I have in years, but I'm extremely limited. The area of Science where I'm the "strongest" would be philosophy of Science.

 

[JM]

Eddie, you are right, I'm getting too far off topic. Apologies.

 

[nobdysfool]

Purely from a logical standpoint, if the Scriptures are not inerrant, then how can we know what God has said? If there isn't an unchanging standard by which to measure, how can we know what is truly right and wrong? Incremental change, over time, leads to major change. Error, if left unchecked, grows over time. Even God's creation shows us that nothing is static, and that entropy is the natural order of things as they are since the Fall. As the Scriptures, say, "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump." Error leads to more error, unless it is stopped, dealt with, and removed. "How can a man take fire to his bosom, and not be burned?"

 

[gord44]

If Sola Scriptura isn't true, then we owe Rome and the Pope a big apology.

You probably don't have to worry about that There is really no way to prove or disprove it. Sola Scriptura is a leap of faith. I can't see where the bible affirms it, let alone early Christians who had no Bible to even consider something like Sola Scriptura. On the other hand, how can it really be disproved?

And to the OP, Reformed theology seems eternally tied to the inerrancy of scripture.

 

[JM]

We all assume certain things about the nature of revelation. Some begin with revelation and reason from this starting point and others reason from a humanistic secular point of view, which I believe the so-called traditional churches do. Believing in the Pope is no less circular in reasoning then believing the Bible teaches sola scriptura.

I was convinced of sola scriptura while attending an Eastern Orthodox church. I became a believer while attending an Anglican church (converted by the grace of God while reading scripture), visit a Roman parish for a while and then EO. I would say sacred and profane history worked together to prove the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice.

jm

 

[nobdysfool]

To the Believer, no explanation is necessary. To the Doubter, no explanation is possible....

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Purely from a logical standpoint, if the Scriptures are not inerrant, then how can we know what God has said? If there isn't an unchanging standard by which to measure, how can we know what is truly right and wrong? Incremental change, over time, leads to major change. Error, if left unchecked, grows over time. Even God's creation shows us that nothing is static, and that entropy is the natural order of things as they are since the Fall. As the Scriptures, say, "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump." Error leads to more error, unless it is stopped, dealt with, and removed. "How can a man take fire to his bosom, and not be burned?"

I agree, and glad to see you posting.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

We all assume certain things about the nature of revelation. Some begin with revelation and reason from this starting point and others reason from a humanistic secular point of view, which I believe the so-called traditional churches do. Believing in the Pope is no less circular in reasoning then believing the Bible teaches sola scriptura.

I was convinced of sola scriptura while attending an Eastern Orthodox church. I became a believer while attending an Anglican church (converted by the grace of God while reading scripture), visit a Roman parish for a while and then EO. I would say sacred and profane history worked together to prove the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice.

jm

Well said, and wow! I never would have guessed, the Lord works in mysterious ways indeed!

 

[cubanito]

I am quite surprised by the results of this poll. Belief in the inerrancy of Scriture is NOT necessary for Salvation. However, I find it impossible to reconcile "sola scriptura" with an errant Scripture. CS Lewis was Anglican, as such he was consistent.

As for me, I actually became a believer in the inerrancy of Scripture by trying to find errors, scientific, self contradictory or historical. I actually believed in the inerrancy of Scripture for over a week before I became a Christian. I did not WANT the Bible to be True, as it clearly placed moral demands upon me which agnosticism did not, I simply could not muster the faith necessary to believe the absurdities claimed by modern scientists about the start of planets, life ect. Just PV=nRT alone is enough to sink the entire world of current cosmology, let alone calculations that for ANY functional protein to arise, if the entire universe were a pre-biotic soup and given 4 billion years is on the order of 1 in a googol.

JR

 

[bsd058]

bsd, are you suggesting that if Adam had obeyed the laws given to him in the garden he would have merited eternal life...without the eternal or everlasting covenant?

Nope. Just that death would not have been incurred without sin.

JM, I think you're taking BSD too far. He is not suggesting that Adam's righteousness was possible (in that he was perfect enough), but that death was the consequence of Adam's Fall. I believe BSD is talking of Adam not sinning in the hypothetical sense. We know that if Adam had been the Law Keeper and not eaten from the tree, he would have eaten from the tree of life and been, in essence, our representative. We know that would not have been possible for Adam to accomplish, but had he been able to, death would not have been necessary.

^^^^What Eddie said.^^^^

lol. Sorry. I leave the computer for the weekend usually. Just so I can get some studying done. I'm always so distracted.

Anyways, ya, sorry for taking this so off topic. My bad. Anyways, hopefully people don't think me a heretic by stating such things. I will have to read Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians and Romans regarding the nature of death incurred by Adam and the resurrection of Christ. Also would like to read more of Calvin's views on this. Instead of blindly stating I think he's wrong, I should actually be reading him and thinking seriously about what he has to say about the subject. He was a great thinker, after all!

 

[Eddie L]

I am quite surprised by the results of this poll.

JR

Really? Why are you surprised?

 

[cubanito]

Because I am an ignorant fool.

JR

 

[Eddie L]

Did you think that there were fewer conservative Calvinists in Semper?

 

[AmericanSamurai]

If you think the Bible is not inerrant in the original autograph, then I think it would be pretty pointless to believe in the Gospel.

 

[bsd058]

I'm surprised there were any that said that you didn't have to believe in inerrancy of Scripture and any that said they didn't know. lol.

That might be my naivety coming through, though.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I didn't vote, the word "should" kind of makes it a trick question, at least to me. Words like "ought" and "should" so often entail ethical meaning.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Because I am an ignorant fool.

Hey, that makes two of us, we're not alone. Every time I read that word on a messageboard, I think about a Calvinist I met before I became one, he used the handle "FoolforChrist" or Fool4Christ it's been too many years ago.

 

[cubanito]

Any thoughts on the discrepancy between posters here and the fact most Presbys both in USA and even more so belong to liberal denominations like PC-USA? While it is true the PC-USA is declining in membership, while more Bible-adherant denominations like my own PCA are slowly increasing, we still have the majority of reformed in the PC-USA (about 2 million).

My own idea is that those who actually value thinking and debating the faith gravitate towards places like this, whereas those who are there for tradition, social networking or just inertia do not spend much effort truly searching the Scriptures. Again, I apologize for what may seem an offensive statement, but really, if you do not view the Bible as God's inerrant word, why would you bother spending much time on it?

JR