The Bible - errant or inerrant?

[cubinity]

The stone was cast when God gave His truth that we are to obey. if the Holy Spirit ain't casting stones at you and convicting you into righteousness, you may want to do as 2 Cor. 13:5 says and Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.

I know that we don't do a lot of things that God commands. But the Body of Chrost should at least be able to acknowledge that what God says is the absolute truth.

But I also know enough to know, it this is not directed at you or anyone else in this thread, that the Bible makes clear that goats will get in with the sheep.

And when I have examined myself, using the Biblical model of Jesus Christ as the standard, and found that I am in the faith, but I still disagree with you? What would you say of me, then?

What God says is the absolute truth. However, God didn't say the text we have at our fingertips. The first evidence of that is that the text is not spoken, but written. The second is that most of the authors have identified themselves or been identified. The third is that even Paul calls it "God breathed," not "God spoken." Breath is unintelligible. He may be saying that the authors are inspired by the Spirit that was also breathed over the void of creation. He did not say anything about the authors' capacities to communicate that inspiration inerrantly. Try not to read into it more than there is.

 

[Zaac]

The rest of the comment, and not this point, was actually the part that was on topic. Folks, try to remember that the topic is the inerrancy of Scripture, not whether or not it is how we find out about something or another.

Then lets deal with the inerrancy of Scripture and stop yelling straw man in order to not deal with the fact that you learned about God from Scripture, but now a viewpoint is being expressed that basically says you happened to get some of the correct information, but not all of it is correct.

Right. At one point I trusted that what the Bible said about him was true. That trust was my choice (or whim) to make, and that trust was contained to this isolated topic. My choice was not a proof of any kind that the text actually was true, or that the text was true about any other topic.

Are you a follower of Jesus Christ?

We all pick and choose as you've described. They are our beliefs. It is absolutely our choice what we choose to believe and not believe. No external standard has any power over this. It is called free-will. It is not detestable, but beautiful. It is the very thing that empowers us to choose to approach Jesus to receive eternal life. I don't see what the problem is.

If you are a Christian, do you witness the Gospel to the unsaved?

Not truth, but certainly choice. Furthermore, what door? What slippery slope? What danger? If the Bible is true, then our choice to believe it is inerrant or not has absolutely no bearing on anything. It is inconsequential, so what's the problem?

Are you a Christian?

Paul says Scripture is God breathed, and from that axiom he does not make the leap that it is inerrant, but only that it is USEFUL. If Paul wasn't willing to make this leap, then why should I?

If it's not inerrant, under what basis do you trust what paul says to be order to make such a statement?

This is preceisely the wanna be god complex of which I spoke whereby folks can't stand the fact that God is God ALONE and that our free will ain't got nothing to do with what He says is the truth.

All this "let's make truth subjective" stuff is born of the master of deceit. It really stinks of pride.

I've been waiting 30 years for a Christian to explain to me why any unsaved person should want to be saved by the god of someone who doesn't even believe the word He gave to be the absolute truth.

But then again, it has been my experience that such people aren't trying to share the gospel to point the unsaved to Christ anyway.

What? God is on God's throne. I'm content hanging out in the crowd of worshipers at His feet.

Are you worshipping at His feet or are you just hanging out down there. The Bible says in John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

So how exactly are you gonna worship in truth without accepting the standard that God has given as truth?

 

[Zaac]

The point is: if the Bible is errant (in facts for example), it wouldn't be absolute truth. And therefore, people would come up with very strange doctrines based on some mistake (thinking that it must be the absolute truth)

The Bible says in Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

The Bible also says in Romans 10:14-1514 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[

The truth must be heard in order for people to be saved. And about the only thing that I can conclude coming from people who say they are Christians, but who put forth this stumbling block about the errancy of the same word they had to hear to be saved, is that they probably aren't taking the Good News to anyone.

If theywere, the nonbelievers would have no reason to believe it and every reason to question whether or not the "Christians" telling them that there is a God who saves really believes it either.

It's good for people to come to Christ. But it's not good to be put in bondage under some strange doctrines based on errors or misunderstanding...

Are you pointing any of them to Christ? With what?

In other words, reason and logic is still necessary. If something sounds wrong, chances are it is wrong... But if people will assume that it's true, regardless of it sounding wrong, then there will be some weird behavior...

Absolutely not. I would venture that the majority of the stuff in God's word sounds wrong to the unbeliever. Who tells someone that he must love his enemies, etc, etc.

Coming to faith in Christ demands faith. If folks have not faithfully accepted the word of God as the absolute truth, there is no basis for you to share the Good News with anyone.

Have you led anyone to Christ?

 

[Zaac]

And when I have examined myself, using the Biblical model of Jesus Christ as the standard, and found that I am in the faith, but I still disagree with you? What would you say of me, then?

There's no need to make this about me. I don't have a word for you to agree or disagree with.

The Biblical model of Jesus starts at Genesis 1 and ends at Revelation 22:21

Part of that Biblical model says 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2:4-6

So in examining oneself by the Biblical model, how does one conclude that he is in the faith without accepting the standard by which he is to be measured?

Exactly how does such a person pick and choose what is true on what days?

Cause I gotta tell ya, if I were in the presence of anyone proclaiming to be a Christian in front of nonChristians, and the Christian said that God's word wasn't inerrant, i'd tell the nonChristians not to trust a word of what he says.

It's crazy because it's the exact same thing the devil did in the garden.

What God says is the absolute truth. However, God didn't say the text we have at our fingertips.

Then what text? What is your standard if not the text that He has given at your fingertips?

All that does is open the door for subjective truth and author confusion that is not of God.

The first evidence of that is that the text is not spoken, but written. The second is that most of the authors have identified themselves or been identified. The third is that even Paul calls it "God breathed," not "God spoken." Breath is unintelligible. He may be saying that the authors are inspired by the Spirit that was also breathed over the void of creation. He did not say anything about the authors' capacities to communicate that inspiration inerrantly. Try not to read into it more than there is.

[/QUOTE]


Are you a Christian? How did you find out about Christ? SImple question.

 

[childofGod31]

You would have no idea that God is love absent His Holy word. You'd have no idea about a Greatest Commandment absent His Holy word.

So either it is all absolutely true or this faith in a God whom yall say has saved you means NOTHING.

It's true, we wouldn't have known. That's why it's helpful to have the Bible to refer to.

It doesn't have to be "all or nothing".

 

[Zaac]

It's true, we wouldn't have known. That's why the Bible is still good, even if it does have mistakes.

It doesn't have to be "all or nothing".

Sure it does. Or else who gets to decide what parts are the truth? I know some homosexuals who would love to discount some stuff as untrue. I know some heterosexual fornicators who would like to toss some stuff too. I know some folks who like to get drunk who would like to toss some of it. I know some folks who don't tithe who would like to toss some of it.

So tell me, do you get to set the standard for all 6.8 billion people in the world as to what parts of the Bible are acceptable truth?

 

[childofGod31]

The Bible says in Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

The Bible also says in Romans 10:14-1514 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[

The truth must be heard in order for people to be saved. And about the only thing that I can conclude coming from people who say they are Christians, but who put forth this stumbling block about the errancy of the same word they had to hear to be saved, is that they probably aren't taking the Good News to anyone.

If theywere, the nonbelievers would have no reason to believe it and every reason to question whether or not the "Christians" telling them that there is a God who saves really believes it either.




Are you pointing any of them to Christ? With what?



Absolutely not. I would venture that the majority of the stuff in God's word sounds wrong to the unbeliever. Who tells someone that he must love his enemies, etc, etc.

Coming to faith in Christ demands faith. If folks have not faithfully accepted the word of God as the absolute truth, there is no basis for you to share the Good News with anyone.

Have you led anyone to Christ?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The Bible is still a good tool, it still has a good message from God. It just doesn't have to be taken at "each single word" since there could be mistakes in translations, in omissions, in misunderstanding... It should be taken as a whole, as an overall message (rather than focusing on each single verse and creating a doctrine based on it)

People CAN believe even if something is not 100%. People do that every day. So they are capable.

But if one is to reject all reasoning power, then that's how cults are born and people do bad things i the name of God. They don't stop to think whether it sounds wrong or right. That's why Muslims kill people in the name of Allah. That's why Catholics killed people through crusades. It's because the power of rational thinking was taken away.

As far as what thing seems believable to a person and which are not, let's leave this to each person. It's between them and God. We should not dictate to them. I am pretty sure that God is strong enough to make them see what He wants them to see.

 

[childofGod31]

Sure it does. Or else who gets to decide what parts are the truth? I know some homosexuals who would love to discount some stuff as untrue. I know some heterosexual fornicators who would like to toss some stuff too. I know some folks who like to get drunk who would like to toss some of it. I know some folks who don't tithe who would like to toss some of it.

So tell me, do you get to set the standard for all 6.8 billion people in the world as to what parts of the Bible are acceptable truth?

I don't know if you noticed, but most people do that anyways. They obey only the things they choose to obey. I have not seen 100% Bible obeying Christians anywhere. Some obey these parts and some obey those. It's reality. No matter how it SHOULD be. And Paul said: don't judge someone else's servant. It's before their own God they stand or fall. And God is able to help them. (or something like that).

We should not set standards for anyone but ourselves.

People will NEVER agree. That's reality. Each one is responsible for their own salvation only. They can SHARE with others, but they can't force their ideas down their throat. Because as Jesus said: people don't see the tree in their eye, but see the stick in their brother's eye. People interpret the Bible and say: this is the truth. But what they have is simply their own interpretation of the written material. Not the truth, but interpretation.... And every group's interpretation of the Bible is different.

 

[childofGod31]

You're kidding, right? Who cares what we look like to an unsaved world as long as we are glorifying God and standing firmly on His truth.

The unsaved world doesn't need the help of Christendom to doubt the truthfulness of God's word. That's why practically everything of this world is against what Christ is for.

Lands sake. Now wonder evil is prospering. Those who were supposedly saved by the Truth don't even support His word as the truth.

Come Jesus Come.



Just WOW. I suppose Jesus should have just taken back all that unreasonable stuff that He said to the folks who crucified Him. He probably wouldn't have had to go to the Cross.

I'm dumbfounded. Is this really the way today's Christian thinks.

Don't tell the truth because you don't want to say something that looks unreasonable and then people won't listen.

Jesus Jesus Jesus.



Here we go again with the god complex. Just can't stand the fact that God knows more than we do so man has got to correct what he thinks God has gotten wrong.

I'm laughing out loud and rejoicing because I KNOW it won't be long before Jesus comes back and wants and for all puts an end to all of this foolish false teaching. It just sounds too much like what happened before Sodom was destroyed and before the Great Flood.

I did not mean to say that we should care for vanity sake or because we want to be accepted by the world. I meant that we would be more useful to God if we don't act too dumb. Because if we act too dumb, why would people want to listen?

I mean this: what if a person came up to you and said: 2 - 1 is 4. And then that person would want to explain math to you. Would you listen? Of course not. You would say: I KNOW that what he just said is nonsense. Why should I listen?

Yes, there are some things in the Bible that would sound strange to a nonChristian (like love your enemy), but I was not talking about those. I was talking about the fact that we should not deny the fact that errors exist when anybody who can read can verify it and say that they do exist. I mean is that not dumb to pretend that they don't exist? Is that not like lying and covering up? And is that not obvious and would make Christians look like they are deceivers on purpose?

If Christians would look that way to the world, they would not be able to lead anybody to Christ because they world would see right through the deception and not trust them.

 

[cubinity]

So in examining oneself by the Biblical model, how does one conclude that he is in the faith without accepting the standard by which he is to be measured?

Accepting the standard as useful and calling the standard inerrant are two substantially different things. I accept the standard as useful, as did its authors.

Exactly how does such a person pick and choose what is true on what days?

The same way they picked and chose Jesus, by exercising the free will build into them and practicing the self-control to make decisions for themselves.

Cause I gotta tell ya, if I were in the presence of anyone proclaiming to be a Christian in front of nonChristians, and the Christian said that God's word wasn't inerrant, i'd tell the nonChristians not to trust a word of what he says.

We aren't making this about you, are we?

It's crazy because it's the exact same thing the devil did in the garden.

Yeah, it is crazy to point at reason and say, "That's the devil!" They said the same thing to Socrates, Newton, and too many others. Aren't we glad they didn't buy into that?

Then what text? What is your standard if not the text that He has given at your fingertips?

The point I was making was that the TEXT is not SPOKEN, and you argued that what God SAID was absolutely true. What God SPEAKS is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean anything about what is WRITTEN. However, I did already admit that the text acts as a useful standard, albeit a sometimes errant one.

All that does is open the door for subjective truth and author confusion that is not of God.

Saying that God wrote it is a subjective statement. You have no objective evidence that God wrote the Bible, and the Bible itself gives credit to men. So, not only is your argument for God's authorship subjective, but it also flies in the face of the testimony of the Bible itself. Who's opening the subjective doors now?

Paul admits, in a text now canonized as Scripture, that what he is writing is his own opinion, unsupported by a command from the Lord (1 Cor. 7:25). In your flurry to interfere with the testimony of all who admit to the human authorship of the Bible, do you also oppose the testimony of the Bible itself and that of one of the Bible's most influential contributors? That sound awfully problematic, don't you think?

Are you a Christian? How did you find out about Christ? SImple question.

I've already answered that question. I'll answer it again. I am a Christian, and the Bible presents Christ to me. I choose to accept the Bible as a useful testimony of Christ, and I accept it as a standard. However, that has nothing to with the claims we are discussing, so bringing it up is off-topic.

 

[Hupomone10]

I don't try to look for errors in the Bible. I try to look for truth.

When I find something that to me seems to be an inconsistency, I don't dwell on it. I realize that in my finite understanding there may be something I'm missing or don't fully understand. And someone may have already resolved it and my question already answered, showing that I'm the one in ignorance.

I give God the benefit of the doubt, don't try to either doubt or defend Him, and consider that the answer may be forthcoming, if I'm patent and continue in faith.

When I go to the Word, am I looking for errors, or am I looking for truth?

A bad paraphrase, but Mark Twain once said something to the effect of "it's not the things I don't understand in the Bible that concern me; it is those things I do understand and am doing nothing about."

Blessing,
H.

 

[Zaac]

Accepting the standard as useful and calling the standard inerrant are two substantially different things. I accept the standard as useful, as did its authors.

The authors accept it as the infallible word of God. To accept the standard as useful, you've got to trust that some aspect of it is true. So how do you do this? What if someone else wants another aspect to be the truth?

It's always easy to tell when something is someone's opinion as opposed to God's truth. Like the stuff you're saying, opinion will always author confusion about God's truth.

The same way they picked and chose Jesus, by exercising the free will build into them and practicing the self-control to make decisions for themselves.

How do they pick and choose Jesus without knowing who He is? That information has to come from somewhere.

We aren't making this about you, are we?

Naah. We're roundabout making this about a very dangerous group of people who call themselves Christ followers but who do not trust that the very words of the Christ they supposedly follow are absolutely true.

Just astonishing.

Yeah, it is crazy to point at reason and say, "That's the devil!" They said the same thing to Socrates, Newton, and too many others. Aren't we glad they didn't buy into that?

Hmm. But we're not talking about Socrates and Newton. We're talking about God's word and a growing contingent of people who call themselves Christians telling folks it's not absolutely true. It's the EXACT SAME thing the devil did in the Garden of Eden.

The point I was making was that the TEXT is not SPOKEN, and you argued that what God SAID was absolutely true.

The word is alive and it speaks to those who listen.

What God SPEAKS is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean anything about what is WRITTEN. However, I did already admit that the text acts as a useful standard, albeit a sometimes errant one.

Again. Astonishing. Did you trust it to be His absolutely true word when you heard it and came to faith in Him?

Saying that God wrote it is a subjective statement.

Saying God wrote it is an untrue statement. God inspired men to write it down.

You have no objective evidence that God wrote the Bible,

I haven't made a statement about God writing the Bible.

and the Bible itself gives credit to men.

Good. I give credit to men having written it down to because God's word says He inspired them to.

So make up your mind. You don't seem to have a problem accepting as the absolute truth that which you think helps your position.

It's complete lunacy for someone to say that he doesn't believe something is absolutely true but then start using it to try and support his position.

So, not only is your argument for God's authorship subjective, but it also flies in the face of the testimony of the Bible itself. Who's opening the subjective doors now?

If God gave them the words to write down, then He is indeed the author. Perhaps a word study on the word author is needed.

Paul admits, in a text now canonized as Scripture, that what he is writing is his own opinion, unsupported by a command from the Lord (1 Cor. 7:25). In your flurry to interfere with the testimony of all who admit to the human authorship of the Bible, do you also oppose the testimony of the Bible itself and that of one of the Bible's most influential contributors? That sound awfully problematic, don't you think?

That has NOTHING to do with the absolute truthfulness of the word. It was still written down because GOD gave him the words to write and include in Scripture.

And again, man may have written it down, but man did not author it.

It is an odd thing when a person professes to be a Christian but believes that he was led to Christ by the words of other sinful men as opposed to the Holy word of God.

I've already answered that question. I'll answer it again. I am a Christian, and the Bible presents Christ to me. I choose to accept the Bible as a useful testimony of Christ, and I accept it as a standard. However, that has nothing to with the claims we are discussing, so bringing it up is off-topic.

And herein is the problem. You say that the Bible presents Christ to you. But according to you that Bible isn't inerrant. So why would anyone with an ounce of sense trust that the Bible presented Christ to you truthfully or at all after you say that what is in the Bible isn't inerrant?

I am thoroughly convinced that people who say the Bile is full of errors cannot possibly give a witness for Christ that has a half of a leg to stand on. The majority probably don't share the Gospel anyhow so it's moot.

 

[RickardoHolmes]

If any person covers something up, hides something, then it will show up at the wrong time and spoil something. How will it look if the people will start to announce on the radio that the Bible has errors while all Christians are blind to this fact? Won't this make Christians look like either dumb people or liars? And then what reason those people would have to believe a Christian?

On the other hand, if Christians acknowledge the errors, then they look like reasonable people to whom somebody might listen.

As far as throwing new stumbling blocks, it's because people are getting smarter and are starting to discover things they didn't see before, like errors. They are being mentioned now because they are being discovered now.

GREAT POINT !!!!

Here is something I have said all along: Suppose God inspires or tells or whatever in the year 150 CE "Write this down, it is not historically or socially accurate but no one will know the difference" then what would happen 2000 years later when people become more educated and more knowledgable and learn it was not accurate? Clearly, An all knowing and All Loving God would no that as people and culture evolve, then details might come to light.
What then?
So we have errors in Biblical facts, dates, timelines, and even certain moral issues. Does God condone this? NO. Does God Lie? NO It was written by men with their own reasons & motivations either spiritual or political. That is all.
It was a book written by man, said to be Inspired by God. Parts of it are. But it is NOT a perfect book.
You have to pick up a copy of Ulysses by James Joyce to find a perfect book. And on the side of the book it says "fiction" So you can know, going into it, what you are going to read.
I want to try to point out that the OP was ERRANT OR INERRANT and I vote clearly, by that definition, ERRANT. The proof of that is clear.

it does not matter how or why. It simply is.

 

[cubinity]

The authors accept it as the infallible word of God.

If the authors accepted it as infallible, why didn't they ever say so?

To accept the standard as useful, you've got to trust that some aspect of it is true. So how do you do this?

Precisely. Some aspect. What's the problem?

What if someone else wants another aspect to be the truth?

"Wants" is the key word that makes your argument ridiculous. It is wanting the entire thing to be something more than it is that has you making these arguments for infallibility in the first place. I don't want anything but the truth, and the claims I've made are supported by the evidence both in and out of the text in question. Shame you want to be right so badly that you can't say the same.

It's always easy to tell when something is someone's opinion as opposed to God's truth. Like the stuff you're saying, opinion will always author confusion about God's truth.

It's also easy to tell when they admit to you that it is just their opinion, as Paul did in 1 Corinthians. Evidence, remember?

Information comes from all kinds of sources that aren't absolutely flawless. Telescopes, Internet, you, me, just to name a few.

Dangerous? What are you talking about? Dangerous to what or whom? If the Bible is the truth, then it protects people, not the other way around. Nothing can be said about the truth to cause it harm if it really is the truth. However, truths can threaten fallacies, like this evidential truth of the Bible's fallibility evidently threatening your insistence that it is something more than it is.

I honestly have no idea where you are coming from with this claim. It isn't helping your credibility at all, though.

The Word, Jesus. Yes, I agree. But, we aren't talking about Jesus, we're talking about the Bible.

No. I trusted in as useful. You aren't such a great listener, are you?

Oh, then we don't have anything to discuss about that.

I have never claimed that anything is absolutely true except the spoken words of God, which we are not discussing at this time. Again, not so great at listening...

Not even the Bible says that God gave them all the words. That's another subjective assumption on your part.

We are all led to Christ by the words of other sinful men, or did you miss Romans 3:23.

The lack of sense is in the illogic of the question. Even my own eyes, through which I read the Scriptures, are not inerrant. Yet, I trusted them. I trust them daily. In fact, I don't have a sense organ in my body that is not inerrant, and yet I trust them. Therefore, it is evidently a physical impossibility for me to have trust of anything and also refuse to trust fallible sources.

I am thoroughly convinced that people who say the Bile is inerrant cannot possibly give a witness for Christ that has a half of a leg to stand on, particularly because that leg is full of errors.

 

[childofGod31]

Then you should really understand why no nonbeliever is going to listen to someone who says they are saved but the very word they had to hear to point them to Christ, they don't believe are absolutely true. It would be a waste of time.

There are many religions and many belief systems. And their books don't claim to be PERFECT, at least I don't think so. But the people are able to believe what they read anyways. So the idea that "if something has errors people won't believe it" is wrong and life proves it.

With all the uncertainly going on in the world, many people are able to have their beliefs in spite of everything.



They verify what they think are errors. If God's word says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. why on earth would I as a Christian accept their ability to find what they believe to be errors from a PERFECT GOD?

I can't even believe we are having this conversation. Because people who aren't supposed to have any understanding of the spiritual things of God are saying there are errors in the Bible, we are to now say there are errors?

I am not talking about understanding spiritual things. Yes, the world wouldn't understand those anyways. I am talking about simple errors that a 7 year old could understand: like wrong number of such and such, wrong name of the wife, wrong genealogy...and things like that.

(SMH)

.

 

[stormdancer0]

In the matter of doctrine and law, the Bible is inerrant. There could be some clerical errors, changes in numbers, etc., but none that make a difference.

 

[cubinity]

In the matter of doctrine and law, the Bible is inerrant. There could be some clerical errors, changes in numbers, etc., but none that make a difference.

 

[wpage]

The Bible is inerrant...

For those who disagree where are the errors.

 

[7steps]

God does not want us to be unthinking fools. The bible is full of mistakes placed there by the free will of man especially in our English translations. It is just a plain fact of religion. Just because someone is willing to see that scripture is full of errors does not mean that it brings doubt into your relationship with God. God wants us to be critically thinking. Actually the more you study scripture the deeper understanding you get of it's truth. The deeper you get into scripture the closer you get to YHWH and his salvation and the further away you get from religion and it's corruptions.

 

[cubinity]

Cubinity, you are a kindred soul.

It is most common for those who insist that we must believe the Bible to be inerrant (I call them fundamentalists) to argue that pointing out the flaws of the messenger somehow deteriorates the validity of the message. There are two problems I have with this: one from the Bible's own text, and the other from philosophy.

2 Corinthians 4:7 says, "But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." I realize that in context Paul is using this to explain how we, in our weak mortality, give witness to the immortal glory of God. However, it extends from the context of the person's life into the context of their testimony. We, Paul is saying, may not be without error, but the Gospel we share is perfect, and worthy of our faith.

Also, to say that the message is erroneous simply because the source is errant is called ad hominem, and it is a philosophical fallacy.

So, I will not argue the validity of the Gospel based on the merits of its source, or on the premise of a fallacy. Rather, I will let the richness of the glorious Gospel stand on its own merits and reveal in my errant life the fullness of its truth.

I know that my Lord has given this instruction when speaking of others who testify about him differently than I would: "Do not stop him. For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us." - Mark 9:39-40.
Furthermore, I take no ownership for anyone's judgment of me as a goat, or a tare, or whatever other names they wish to call me for Christ's sake, for I know that my Lord has decreed, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." - Matthew 7:2.