• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

The Errors of Inerrancy

Discussion in 'Semper Reformanda' started by JM, Sep 27, 2017.

  1. JM

    JM Orthodox Protestant Supporter

    +2,610
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Any thoughts on this article?

    Source: The Errors of Inerrancy: #1 The Church has never possessed an inerrant Bible

    The Errors of Inerrancy: #1. The Church has never possessed an inerrant Bible.

    No one person or church has ever possessed an inerrant Bible, because Biblical Inerrancy "strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture" (c.f. Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article X) and all the Original Autographs have not existed at the same time. It's possible that an early church may have briefly possessed two or more Original Autographs of Paul's letters (e.g. 1 & 2 Corinthians), but no one has ever seen all of the Original Autographs of the New Testament. Therefore, the Church has never possessed or operated with a complete inerrant Bible. The extant Bible that has actively guided the Church everywhere throughout history, from the very beginning, has never been an inerrant Bible.

    Inerrancy undermines the Authority of the Bible in the Church

    According to the logic of Biblical Inerrancy, only the lost Original Autographs are authoritative, and extant copies of the Bible are authoritative so far as they accurately reproduce the inerrant Original Autographs. Therefore the Church has never operated with an authoritative Bible because the Original Autographs perished shortly after they were written, and as few as fifty people or less may have been eye-witnesses to one or more of the so-called inerrant Original Autographs! Sadly, the hypothetical inerrant Original Autographs have perished and are forever lost, and their brief existence was like shooting stars that unknown people happened to see strike brilliantly across the sky before disappearing forever into the darkness of space.

    Inerrancy undermines the Infallibility of the Bible.

    On the contrary, the extant Bible has always had authority in the Church throughout history despite the immediate extinction of the inerrant Original Autographs. The authoritative Bible is the extantBible actively used in the Church, and not the extinct inerrant Original Autographs. The authority of the Bible does not depend on inerrant Original Autographs, but exclusively upon the testimony of the Holy Spirit, such that revelation of the Word of God is faithfully witnessed through even inaccurate copies of the Bible (e.g. consider the influence of the KJV Bible that used the defective Textus Receptus). Establishing the authority of the Bible on extinct inerrant Original Autographs means that the Word of God has failed to outlive the parchment of the Original Autographs they were written upon, and is in flat contradiction to Matthew 24:35, where the Evangelist declares the word of Jesus are infallible.

    Inerrancy undermines Church Dogma dependent on single words of scripture.

    It is impossible to say that a single word of any extant Bible is identical to the inerrant Original Autograph. Many Christian Doctrines are established on a single word of Scripture (c.f σπέρματι in Gal 3:16). Ironically, this includes inerrancy as well! B.B. Warfield's argument for Inerrancy in his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible rests exclusively on the single greek word inspiration(θεόπνευστος) in 2 Tim 3:16! So it is impossible to affirm Biblical Inerrancy and "DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs" (Chicago Statement, Art X).

    Biblical Inerrancy is a Dispensable Accretion to the Doctrine of Inspiration.

    Martin Luther said that "there are two entities: God and the Scripture of God, which are no less than two entities, creator and creature of God." The error of inerrancy might have been averted if this distinction between the divine revelation of the Word of God and the human witness in the Holy Scriptures were maintained. Inerrancy unnecessarily combines these entities in a similar way to how the monophysites combined the human and divine natures in Christology (and for clarity, I'm not saying Biblical Inerrancy is a heresy). The desire to affirm the Bible, naively resulted in reducing the doctrine of inspiration to a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration. Maintaining Luther's distinction abolishes the requirement for inerrant Original Autographs entirely! If there are errors in the Scriptures, then the testimony of the Holy Spirit will enable the Church to hear the Word of God faithfully and accurately in Scriptures, despite the Scripture's capacity for error.

    Biblical Inerrancy is a Mechanical Dictation Theory of Inspiration

    For instance, Paul dictated the Epistle of the Romans through the prison bars to Tertius (c.f. Rom 16:11), so in his cause, there is no written Original Autograph! Tertius copied down what Paul spoke, so the first written copy of the Epistle to the Romans is not inerrant (according to the logic of Biblical Inerrancy). Asserting that Tertius' transcription was the inerrant Original Autograph of Romans reduces Biblical Inerrancy to a "mechanical dictation theory of inspiration" (identical to the Islamic view of the Qu'ran). Consider the odd conclusion that Paul's spoken words are not inerrant, but Tertius' transcription of Paul's words are inerrant! Suggesting Paul and his scribe co-authored the inerrant epistle is equally and likewise odd. Proponents of Biblical Inerrancy have said, "WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities" (Chicago Statement, Art. IX). However, in this view, Paul is comparable to a computer speaker that plays heavenly music, and Tertius is like a microphone that records a heavenly musician—and no one considers speakers and microphones to be authors of music today!

    The extant Bible is always better than the extinct inerrant Bible

    The Bible that has always been normative and authoritative in the Church has never been an inerrant Bible! So there's no need to imagine an inerrant Bible. And since we have no known witnesses to describe the ontology of the lost Original Autographs, we may not make any positive statements regarding their composition or nature. If the lost Original Autographs were miraculously preserved and one day discovered, and upon analysis, proved to have the same types of errors that all future copies possessed, there would be no change to the Bible possessed everywhere today! It is the extant Bible, not the inerrant Bible, that has been norming norm for the Church and the extant Bible, not the extinct inerrant Bible, that is the sola scriptura of the Church.

    The Errors of Inerrancy: A ten-part series on why Biblical Inerrancy censors the Scriptures and divides Evangelicals:

    #1 The Church has never possessed an inerrant Bible
    #2 Inerrant Original Autographs are a Tautology of Biblical Inerrancy
    #3 Inerrancy Censors the Bible’s Capacity for Error
    #4 Inerrancy denies that the Bible contains scientific errors
    #5 Inerrancy reduced the Biblical Authors into Ventriloquist Dummies
    #6 Inerrancy obscures Jesus with the Bible
    #7 Biblical Inerrancy’s Myth-Making Machine, Unveiled
    #8 The Protestant Reformers Would Not Affirm Biblical Inerrancy (Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.)
    #9: Inerrancy turns the Bible into a Paper Pope.
    #10: Biblical Inerrancy Divides Evangelicals
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. AlexDTX

    AlexDTX Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,745
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    I believe in the inerrancy of the Spirit and His ability to guide us into all truth.
     
  3. JM

    JM Orthodox Protestant Supporter

    +2,610
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Interesting. Do you test the Spirits and if so, by what standard?

    Thank you
     
  4. faroukfarouk

    faroukfarouk Fading curmudgeon

    +16,286
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Who wrote this?

    There is a view (odd imho) that the institutional church ratifies the apographs (extant copies) rather than the autographs (originals) and that it is by the institutionalized ratification of the apographs, not autographs, that we supposedly have the authority of Scripture.

    I don't subscribe to this view.

    I do, by God's grace, fall back on God's wondrous preservation of His Word (rather than rely on some institutional church 'authority' argument).
     
  5. AlexDTX

    AlexDTX Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,745
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Do you test your wife? I know the Spirit.
     
  6. JM

    JM Orthodox Protestant Supporter

    +2,610
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    1 John 4King James Version
    4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

    5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

    6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

    7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

    8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

    9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

    10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

    11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

    12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

    13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

    14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

    15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

    16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

    17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

    18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

    19 We love him, because he first loved us.

    20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

    21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
     
  7. Saved.By.Grace

    Saved.By.Grace Member

    233
    +140
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Private
    Simply put, without the Inerrancy of the original autographs of the Holy Bible (66 Books, Genesis-Revelation), the Bible becomes just another book. It is essential that this is never rejected or questioned.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  8. faroukfarouk

    faroukfarouk Fading curmudgeon

    +16,286
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes; it becomes very subtly and merely the supposed word of man.
     
  9. Thedictator

    Thedictator Retired Coach, Now Missionary to the World

    989
    +507
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I know a man who said I don't need the Bible, because I know the Holy Spirit. He is now serving a life sentence for walking into a church and killing 4 people, He told me the Holy Spirit told him to do it, because they were false Christians.

    Every Mormon missionary I have ever met has said that the Holy Spirit told them that Mormonism was the true religion.
     
  10. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,611
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I think inerrancy is the doctrine of the devil, but the argument in the OP is a lousy one. It's true that there are some uncertainties in the text, but not enough to cause any practical problems. The OP is looking for some kind of absolute that doesn't appear in real life, and isn't necessary. Of course you can argue that that's what inerrancy is about, but most people don't take it that far.
     
  11. TaylorSexton

    TaylorSexton 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

    +418
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    That's a little much.
     
  12. AlexDTX

    AlexDTX Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,745
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Don't you see the irony of your argument? You ask about the inerrancy of Scriptures, then you use Scriptures to respond.

    I know the Bible. I know the verses you quoted. I wrote a brief comment because I was on my way to work.

    The academic criticism of Scriptural accuracy hinges on a false premise. When an author, such as Homer, dies there is no way to know what the author wrote when copies of copies is all we have left of his writing and the original manuscripts are gone.

    The argument that only the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Bible are inerrant contains this underlying assumption. Of course there are no original drafts of these documents, only copies of copies. So the argument continues that only the oldest copies of the manuscripts are reliable since it is more likely they are faithful copies. The academic argument assumes since the men who wrote the Scriptures are dead this is the only reliable means of knowing what was supposed to be written. This also means that all translations into any other language will probably contain errors.

    What I said is that the Spirit is inerrant. The author of the Bible is not men, but God and God still lives. He is faithful to watch over His word to perform it. I responded to you, do you know your wife? Jesus said, my sheep know my voice. Are you one of his sheep? Then you should know his voice. If not, then you are none of his.

    It is God who has preserved what he wants written in the Bible, and it is God who oversees translations.

    How did the cannon of Scriptures come together? By the decision of a group of men who decided which documents to include? No. They merely declared what was already agreed upon by believers who had the Spirit in them. Yes, there were disputes, but they were only with one or two documents.

    God uses all things for his glory. There will always be believers who trust the Spirit and there will always be believers weak in faith who rely more on natural understanding. So even academic criticism will always line up with the Spirit.

    And the academic criticisms have overwhelmingly agreed that the reliability of Scriptures is up there in the 99.9% range. In other words, the errors are negligible and have no impact on a follower of Christ to know Him through the Bible as well as by the Spirit.
     
  13. AlexDTX

    AlexDTX Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,745
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Good grief. I have not made any argument for not reading the Bible. What an extreme example. That is like saying that if one bad thing could happen, don't ever do x y or z.
     
  14. nonaeroterraqueous

    nonaeroterraqueous Nonexistent Member

    +2,212
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    I find myself arguing both sides of the matter, and I suspect that with a little more clarification I'd probably have to disagree with you, also, but as stated I accept what you just said.

    I hold that nothing human and nothing under the influence of humans, and even nothing natural in this world is perfect, therefore such things cannot be inerrant. I believe that the original texts were better than anything that followed, but I'm not convinced that even the originals were inerrant. Only God is perfect. To call something perfect is to call it God, or an extension of God, or part of God. I have great respect for the Bible, but I know that even sacred things can become idols, such as the brass serpent, or Moses' rod, or the Catholic image of Mary, etc. Therefore, even though calling inerrancy a doctrine of the devil sounds, "a little much," the fact is that idolatry often is the doctrine of devils. They may not cause me to bow before a golden calf, or rat, as it may be, but a nearer target presents itself.

    However, the Bible is sufficient. The Bible is still God's light in a dark world. It is still the canon. It can always help us so long as we read it with an honest mind. That's why I don't post opinions like what I've just said in the general forum, because we have too many people who would push the other way. Too many people would regard fallibility as reason enough to believe what they like. The Bible does have errors, but we are far safer with those errors than with the errors of our own making.
     
  15. AMR

    AMR Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

    +903
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Republican
    One can only say the autographs are without error because one has access to the autographs in the apographs. Whatever may be assumed from the writings of older divines can only be assumed because they affirmed an infallible Word in their possession. To speak of a non-existent thing as being infallible is meaningless.

    The main point is that modern textual criticism is seeking a text which does not exist: a phantom. It begins with a presupposition that is unreformed, adopts evidential methods that are unscientific, and ends in a quest that is unrealistic.

    The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157 also states,
    "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God."

    For the Reformed, if one cannot approach their particular translation with this conviction, then their view of the translation in their hand is obviously at odds with the confessional view. We do not come to worship and hear the Word of God if we are standing in judgement of the very word of God.
    When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice—we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgment upon it?

    When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.

    Again, the Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord"—to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, Reformed piety taught that the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (WLC, answer 157). It is contrary to Reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, all the while esteeming them both as the Word of God.

    I don’t mind some scholarly skepticism in the realm of historical criticism (higher criticism), but I reject the idea of its proponents who, owing to their emphasis on textual corruption, believe it is impossible to even speak about an original text, since these persons view the text as being unstable for many years, even centuries.

    For me, an autograph is an original manuscript, the production of which is clearly described in Scripture (Exodus 24:4; Colossians 4:18; Galatians 6:11). This autograph includes manuscript production by amanuensis, who directly received the text by dictation from the Biblical author (Jeremiah 36:4,17-18; Romans 16:22; 1 Peter 5:12). All this was done via the divine instrumentality of God (1 Chronicles 28:19; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16).

    I adopt the WCF’s distinctive Reformed view by noting that the WCF’s identifying the Hebrew and Greek texts as authentical in no way requires a direct reference to the Hebrew and Greek autographa—as if some scaffolding for mounting an argument for infallibility is required. No, the arguments for (1)a received text free from major error (discounting scribal errors), and (2)Scripture as our infallible rule of faith and practice, rest upon the examination of the apographa we have received, as transmitted via the providential, preserving care of God from faithful copies.

    Can copies of Scripture be inspired? It depends. We can certainly deduce that the autographa were inspired, but it is also very logical for me to claim that apographic Scripture, what I define as faithful copies, is also theoneustos. When Paul wrote that all Scripture was theoneustos in 2 Tim 3:16, what existed at the time was not the autographa, but the faithful copies, the apographa. Accordingly, inspiration cannot be restricted to some lost autographs, unless we want to claim the church today is without an infallible Scripture.

    There is a difference between verbal inspiration and verbal inerrancy. Inspiration concerns the words of the text (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 1:12), and inerrancy concerns the truth or trustworthiness of the statements they make (Luke 1:1-4; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:16).

    When all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including Scriptural assertions/affirmations of doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.
     
  16. JM

    JM Orthodox Protestant Supporter

    +2,610
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    So I guess the scriptures are not like your wife. lol

    Actually, I didn't ask about inerrancy but asked what the folks in SR thought about the article I posted. I actually hold to the confessionally Reformed view. That just so happens to be the position the 17th century Reformers confessed, and is stated in Westminster and Second London Baptist Confessions. According to these confessions, the scriptures are:

    “immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.” (article 1:8)

    Dr. Edward Hills explains how Erasmus, in his first printing of his Greek New Testament, was guided by a common faith held by all concerning, the text they had. And that,

    “Luther, Melanchton, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, and the other scholars of the Reformation Period who labored on the New Testament text were similarly guided by God’s special providence. These scholars had received humanistic training in their youth, and in their notes and comments they sometimes reveal traces of this early education. But in their actual dealings with the biblical text these humanistic tendencies were restrained by the common faith in the providential preservation of Scripture, a faith which they themselves professed along with their followers. Hence in the Reformation Period the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of any other book. The humanistic methods used on other books were not applied to the New Testament. In their editions of the New Testament Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided by the common faith to adopt the current text, primarily the current Greek text and secondarily the current Latin text. … thus the logic of faith led true believers of that day, just as it leads true believers today, to the Textus Receptus as the God-guided New Testament text”

    The Greek text edition circulated by Theodore Beza was in common use and considered authoritative. There was little or no further textual criticism done to his Greek edition, hence, it was received. In history we find a clear witness of the Protestant church to the Received Text. The church is the witness, the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

    J. H. Gosden of the Gospel Standard Baptist observes in his commentary on the Gospel Standard Baptist Articles of Faith,

    “By inspiration of God gave the Holy Oracles, and power – perennial miracle – He preserves them intact. They are inerrant, unchangeable, unlosable. Could they err or change or be lost, their divine origin would be disapproved and dependence upon them would be misplaced. In such a case there would exist no foundation upon which to build for eternity, no final court of appeal respecting truth and error, no standard of doctrine, no rule of practice, no touchstone of experience. “

    Those who prefer to use a rational approach in defining the New Testament text have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that “only the originals are inspired.” The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case maybe, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen, becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It denies what scriptures reveals about itself.

    As the peoples historian D’Aubigne declared, “Christianity is neither an abstract doctrine nor an external organization. It is a life from God communicated to mankind…”

    The CT man has no biblical text:

    Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.”

    Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.”

    G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that scepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage.”

    Douglas Wilson writes,

    “This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it. “

    Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert inn ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,

    “As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. “


    We cannot declare the originals only, exchanging “King James Onlyism” for “Original Text Onlyism,” our very idea of sola scriptura does not allow for it. Without a foundational set of manuscripts Protestantism is reduced to just one of many traditions with sola scriptura a late development and no less of a tradition then that found in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. This tradition is reduced to a Magisterium of scholars instead of Popes, Cardinals and Bishops. We have replaced the Roman Magisterium with a Magisterium of Textual Critics. Rome acts like a final authority, and the scholar tells us what the final authority might be.

    If the Reformed view is incorrect I'm converting to Romanism.

    :preach:

    jm
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  17. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,182
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Sure I'll make a few comments, though I feel AMR said all that needs to be said, and then some.


    Notice how the author(s) of the article make claims to knowledge? They make such claims boldly as though they have certainty. But on what basis can they make such claims to possessing certainty of knowledge? They have no epistemological ground to make such claims. If we have no certain revelation from God, we have no grounds for certainty of any knowledge, because certainty comes from God, from a source outside of ourselves. However, subjectivists will often make objectivist claims. At the same time, in my mind the truth (of which is the case) is not either or, but both and. I call them subjectivists, for the simple fact they make objective claims to knowledge, while at the same time have no objective justification for such claims. So the first question that should come to mind is, HOW do they or anyone for that matter, KNOW the Church has never possessed an inerrant Bible? The fact is they mix truths with lies and call it truth. They think they are clever in making such statements as "but no one has ever seen
    all of the Original Autographs of the New Testament" carefully qualifying their statement with "all". It does not matter whether modern bible critics have ever seen an original autograph, it does not matter whether the early Church had possession of every original autograph, it does not take anything away from the inerrancy of each and every autograph of the self-attesting canon.

    At this point I need to take a coffee break and wake up more, shake the headache of dealing with postmodern Barfian thought.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  18. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,182
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    So getting back to the criticism of the criticism. Keep in mind the claim at the end of the first section "from the very beginning, has never been an inerrant Bible." This my friends is a knowledge claim and at the same time from a position of skepticism fueled by subjectivism. This is Biblical Criticism gone wild, crazy, into the despair of madness. From the time I learned a little about Biblical Criticism, I knew it would never be an area for me. It really demands a special kind of person, not only brilliant, and knowledgeable, but so many other qualities, like an unshakable faith while pouring over pieces and fragments of what is left of ancient manuscripts for hours on end and trying to piece them together, comparing them with other fragments and manuscripts in better condition. Almost from the start, I could see how easily such a pursuit, could lead to doubt, hopelessness, and despair. Such a path could easily make a skeptic out of about anyone. Unfortunately there is a need for Biblical criticism, if for no other reason than to skillfully counter the skeptics who are in the same field. On to a more direct criticism. If you will notice, the text from the article above is loaded with qualifications. "logic of", "only the lost", "so far as", "so-called", "hypothetical" are all qualifiers. Also if you will notice, it is loaded with unfounded assumptions (with no references to even support) such as "perished shortly", "as few as fifty people or less may have", "one or more". This kind of skepticism undermines the sovereignty of God, undermines His providential care to protect and preserve His word. The whole argument demonstrates zero confidence in the God who revealed Himself would ensure that His words endure forever. On what basis do can I make that claim? How about "from the very beginning, [there] has never been an inerrant Bible." This is the underlying philosophy behind the entire article from an allegiance to skepticism. The ironic thing about it is, here we have a skeptic lacking both the knowledge to make such a claim, and justification for making such bold statements. How does this person KNOW "as few as fifty people or less may have been eye-witnesses to one or more" of the original inerrant autographs? Has somebody created a time machine that I'm not aware of to peer through the corridors of time to do a head count? This person also misrepresents the position of Biblical Inerrancy in saying "only the lost Original Autographs are authoritative", that my friends is not true, not at all the position of Biblical Inerrancy. To think people (including myself) who hold to Biblical Inerrancy do not consider copies of the autographs, or even copies of the copies to be authoritative is completely absurd! God sovereignly superintended copies (how many I could not say), and He made certain there would be so many copies that His word would indeed endure forever (despite countless attempts to destroy the Scriptures) and with such a cloud of witnesses as to have complete confidence that what we read (including quality translations) is faithful to the intended meaning of the original autographs. So Praise God for the biblical scholars involved in Biblical criticism that hold firmly to Biblical inerrancy, I would not at all be surprised to learn they comprise of a minority of within the whole (especially today).

    To be continued...
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  19. jax5434

    jax5434 Member

    630
    +239
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    The article does not question the inerrancy of the autographs.
    God Bless
    Jax
     
  20. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,182
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The article is aimed as a blow to modern Christians embracing Biblical inerrancy and at the same time twisting the actual position of Biblical inerrancy. The overall message is that because we do not possess the autographs we cannot rightfully hold to Biblical inerrancy which is ridiculous, as ridiculous as the Scientist who will say he cannot believe because he cannot observe God under a microscope.
     
Loading...