Question for Sola Scripturists.

[TOmNossor]

I hope that nobody is offended that I return to ask a question. I also understand that I cannot post this question in another thread because I believe things that make my participation elsewhere unacceptable.

In keeping with my desire to ask those who embrace a certain doctrine to define it for me I would like to ask Sola Scripturist the following question. IRL I have gotten some answers that surprised me and I wanted to see if there is a spectrum of belief or a uniformity of belief within Evangelical / Protestant circles. I am also hoping to discover if there is a particularly orthodox view.





On to my question:



I have been asking a few folks this question and the answer I am getting disturbs me a little. I will tell you what the answer I am getting means to me so as not be baiting anyone and so if one gives me this answer they might explain why my understanding of it is flawed.



As I understand it one of the foundational beliefs of Sola Scripturists is that the Bible is inerrant. What I am beginning to hear however is that in order for the Grace of God to be active (and result in salvation) one must not only have faith in Christ, but one must also believe in an inerrant Bible. According to this as it has been expressed to me by a few folks, a Christian may believe every thing taught in the Bible (salvation by Grace alone through Jesus Christ who was the Son of God, the second member of the Trinity, and who died for our sins and was resurrected), but not believe that the Bible is inerrant and the Grace of God will not result in salvation.



I have no specific problem with believing in an inerrant Bible. In truth I guess I do not believe in this, but I also do not disbelieve any word in the Bible. But, when one suggest that it is through faith in Christ AND faith in the inerrancy of the Bible that we are saved I think we have elevated a book (even a God breathed book) to a position of worship. It is ok to believe the Bible is inerrant, but when you make this believe something without which we are damned, I think you cross a line. To me this is a form of polytheism.



So to those who are Sola Scripturists, is it necessary for salvation to believe that the Bible is inerrant? And if you answer, “yes,” why am I mistaken when I say that this is elevating the Bible to a worshiped position?



Charity, TOm

 

[drstevej]

So to those who are Sola Scripturists, is it necessary for salvation to believe that the Bible is inerrant?


Charity, TOm

No. It is not necessary for salvation.

Doesn't mean that this is not an important doctrine, but these are separate issues.

 

[Breetai]

Non-denominational, T-U-_-I-P Calvinist

Off topic....but I love your love your user-title! It had me laughing pretty hard.

 

[drstevej]

Of topic....but I love your love your user-title! It had me laughing pretty hard.

I have a seasonal version... No-L

 

[Serapha]

So to those who are Sola Scripturists, is it necessary for salvation to believe that the Bible is inerrant?


Charity, TOm

Hi there!



http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/

"Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."

"WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ."
"WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church."

And if you answer, “yes,” why am I mistaken when I say that this is elevating the Bible to a worshiped position?

We have to walk in the light that God gives us. God is light. He gives us "light" in the form of knowledge and enlightment.

If we were both mainstream Christians, then you would still be walking in the light and knowledge that God gives you while I continue on my own journey of enlightment and knowledge.

The Word of God does not say that you must believe my "Words" to be saved, but that you must believe in who the Christ of Calvary is and what He has done and will do for you. It says that you have to know what sin is, that the penalty of sin will result in eternal separation from God and that each person is in need of repentance for their sins to be reconciled back to God.


However, once one is redeemed, and beginning their journey of "light" from God... eventually, they have to reach a point where they either are sola scriptura or not. One cannot say, "Oh, I want to pick and choose what is the absolute and inerrant truth in the Bible, and I want to pitch the rest as not applicable to me"

It isn't worshipping the Word of God to use it as a guidebook for living life and preparing for the afterlife... The inspiration comes from God as does the discernment concerning the Book.

Is there a better guidebook for living life?


~serapha~

 

[CrownCaster]

I hope that nobody is offended that I return to ask a question. I also understand that I cannot post this question in another thread because I believe things that make my participation elsewhere unacceptable.

In keeping with my desire to ask those who embrace a certain doctrine to define it for me I would like to ask Sola Scripturist the following question. IRL I have gotten some answers that surprised me and I wanted to see if there is a spectrum of belief or a uniformity of belief within Evangelical / Protestant circles. I am also hoping to discover if there is a particularly orthodox view.





On to my question:



I have been asking a few folks this question and the answer I am getting disturbs me a little. I will tell you what the answer I am getting means to me so as not be baiting anyone and so if one gives me this answer they might explain why my understanding of it is flawed.



As I understand it one of the foundational beliefs of Sola Scripturists is that the Bible is inerrant. What I am beginning to hear however is that in order for the Grace of God to be active (and result in salvation) one must not only have faith in Christ, but one must also believe in an inerrant Bible. According to this as it has been expressed to me by a few folks, a Christian may believe every thing taught in the Bible (salvation by Grace alone through Jesus Christ who was the Son of God, the second member of the Trinity, and who died for our sins and was resurrected), but not believe that the Bible is inerrant and the Grace of God will not result in salvation.



I have no specific problem with believing in an inerrant Bible. In truth I guess I do not believe in this, but I also do not disbelieve any word in the Bible. But, when one suggest that it is through faith in Christ AND faith in the inerrancy of the Bible that we are saved I think we have elevated a book (even a God breathed book) to a position of worship. It is ok to believe the Bible is inerrant, but when you make this believe something without which we are damned, I think you cross a line. To me this is a form of polytheism.



So to those who are Sola Scripturists, is it necessary for salvation to believe that the Bible is inerrant? And if you answer, “yes,” why am I mistaken when I say that this is elevating the Bible to a worshiped position?



Charity, TOm

Salvation is ALL of Jesus and nothing on top. I do believe though that the Bible is inerrant but that does not contribute to my salvation in any way but only assists me in accepting the words of Jesus as binding on my life.

 

[TOmNossor]

All,

Thank you very much for your responses, that is much more of what I actually expected rather than what I had heard from a few folks around town.



Serapha,

I was really not trying to suggest that I would ever pick and choose which verses to embrace or reject. As I see things that would be a prideful, self-aggrandizing action. I am really not personally opposed to believing the Bible is inerrant. If inerrancy was a powerfully accepted tenet of a church/congregation/belief structure that I felt spiritually and intellectually drawn to, I could embrace it. I am however personally opposed to believing that it is necessary for salvation to believe in sola scriptura.



Drstevej and Breetai,

I think TU_IP is the best sola scriptura read on the Bible (1 John 2:2 and 1 Tim 4:10)



And Crowncaster,

Petoutka was prolly my favorite candidate (but my second choice for a vote).



Thanks again for everyone’s response.



Charity, TOm

 

[Imblessed]

So to those who are Sola Scripturists, is it necessary for salvation to believe that the Bible is inerrant? And if you answer, “yes,” why am I mistaken when I say that this is elevating the Bible to a worshiped position?



Charity, TOm

No, definately not necessary. And you are right that to say it is necessary would be elevating the Bilbe to a worshipped position.

I think you can be a Sola Scripturist without being dogmatic about it's "inerrancy". I guess it all depends on what you mean by inerrant, really. I think it means different things to different people.

 

[skylark1]

Hi Tom,

I agree that belief that the Bible is inerrant is not necessary for salvation. Jesus said that whosoever believes in Him will have everlasting life, not whosoever believes in the inerrancy of the scriptures. However, it concerns me that if people deny the inerrancy of the Bible that they might miss the message of the gospel. It is through the writings in the Bible that God has revealed His plan of salvation.

 

[Petr]

It seems to me that sola-scripturists, who believe in the Bible to be fully innerant, would feel like lost sheep not knowing who they themselves are, if the Bible in the end was not innerant. You put too much faith in what the Bible says, in the world where nothing is perfect. It is an absurdity, it is a folly.

 

[Petr]

Hi Tom,
It is through the writings in the Bible that God has revealed His plan of salvation.

No, it is through the Spirit. The writings are only a reminder, (and they are not perfect for nothing but the Spirit is the TRUTH)

Teach me to do Your will; for You are my God; Your Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness. - Psalm 143:10

for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." Luke 12:12

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14:26

But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more. - Jermiah 31:34

 

[TOmNossor]

Skylark,

I think your concern is well founded and a good sola scriptura position. Thanks for your comments.



Petr,

Truth be told, I think the Spirit is the final answer, but I look to scripture and ordained leaders for initial guidance.

Also, without getting into it too much Biblical inerrancy is no longer (if it ever was) a homogeneous belief. Biblical inerranist children of Biblical inerranist parents who believed a universal flood was necessary for the Bible to be inerrant do not (in some cases) feel compelled to share such beliefs.

And of course thank you for your comments too.



I am happy to see the folks who responded to this thread. Many familiar names and a few new ones. Thank you all for taking the time.



Charity, TOm

 

[Svt4Him]

If God has exalted His word above His name, what is then higher than it?

 

[CrownCaster]

It seems to me that sola-scripturists, who believe in the Bible to be fully innerant, would feel like lost sheep not knowing who they themselves are, if the Bible in the end was not innerant. You put too much faith in what the Bible says, in the world where nothing is perfect. It is an absurdity, it is a folly.

And that is just your way of being able to justify your twisting and changing the Word of God to fit your ill conceived ideas of God and still be able to consider yourself a Christian. Talk about folly.

 

[jason_the_ecumenicalist]

Remember that innerancy is a fallible man made doctrine!!! It was formed by Charles Hodge and his son A.A. Hodge in the middle and late 1800's. The statement of innerancy that is posted is from the Chicaog Creed on Innerancy, which has been used to carry out witch hunts. The innerancy of scripture is in no way a necessity for salvation. The appostles did not write on the subject and anyone who attempts to justify that they did is merely proof-texting and ripping the Bible out of context.

Further, it is believed that only the orginal autograph penned by the apostle is innerant, which none of these originals no longer exist.

Anyone who says believing in innerancy and inspiration is necessary for salvation is wrong. Those who hold this doctrine risk falling into bibliolatry.

 

[Nehi]

Remember that innerancy is a fallible man made doctrine!!!

Here's a thought ... The Bible says "all scripture is God-breathed"

If there are errors in Scripture then God has halitosis .

 

[jason_the_ecumenicalist]

If God has exalted His word above His name, what is then higher than it?

Your quotation of Psalms 138:2 is not to be equated with innerancy. You are reading it through your 21st centruy eye glasses.

That is prooftexting and WAY out of context. the word there does not correspond to the bible or scripture. I seem to remember from Hebrew class the word has somethng to do with God's commands I.e. the covenant with Israel, or even the ten commanments My translation was

For You have magnified your commands and your authority/character above all.

That would be more accurate, even check a concordance # 565, 8304.

 

[jason_the_ecumenicalist]

Here's a thought ... The Bible says "all scripture is God-breathed"

If there are errors in Scripture then God has halitosis .

Here is a thought as well ... Nice try in attempting to put me in my place. Do you really want to debate Greek??!!!

Ii Timothy 3:16...good one. Thats one of my favorite verses to disect.

lets translate accuratley.

"Only Orthodox scripture is useful for teaching..."

The word for Godbreathed (θεοπνευστος (theopneustos) ) only occurs once in the entire bible.

the word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos) is used as a term for measuring orthodoxy or correct teaching in all other ancient texts that use the word!

I will sign any doctrinal statement that claims the Bible is inspired and infallible, because the chruch has taught so forever. But the word you are using should not be equated with inspiration.

believing the bible is inspired and infallible is important, but it is not necessary for salvation and that is all I was saying.

 

[Nehi]

I believe the doctrine of inerrancy is as old as the Bible the Princeton theologians simply defended it against contemporary denials.

Theopneustos translated as God-breathed is hardly a stretch. It may not fit your views, but it is solid translation.

believing the bible is inspired and infallible is important, but it is not necessary for salvation and that is all I was saying.

And I made the same point.

Nehi

BTW, I am not trying to put you in your place. I just think a bit of humor helps communicate theology. Nothing personal intended whatsoever.

 

[skylark1]

No, it is through the Spirit. The writings are only a reminder, (and they are not perfect for nothing but the Spirit is the TRUTH)

Teach me to do Your will; for You are my God; Your Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness. - Psalm 143:10

for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." Luke 12:12

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14:26

But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more. - Jermiah 31:34

Hi Petr,

I think that you misunderstood my comments. When you quoted me, you deleted part of my post and did not note that you had done so. My concern is that it appears in your quote that I was stating that I believed that a position of Biblical inerrancy is neccessary for salvation, when I had stated the opposite.

Also, I am concerned that you (and perhaps others) think that the belief in sola scripture means that one does not believe that the Holy Spirit can guide us and teach us. He does! One way that He does this is by helping us to understand scripture. If the Bible was not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then it is little more than a historical of men's beliefs. The Bible is much more that a historical record. I believe that through it God has revealed His plan of salvation to man. The Old Testament points to Christ in it's shadows and prophecies, and the New Testamnet reveals Christ. The Holy Spirit brings understanding, but God's plan is written in scripture.

I think that a belief in inerrancy allows for discrepency in determining what the writer intended. Those who first believed that the earth was not flat were accused of not believing in the inerracy of the Bible. The following is from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

[size=+1]We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.[/size]

[size=+1]So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed. [/size]


http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm

​