Thus, while one can be saved without believing in inerrancy, the doctrine of salvation has no divine authority apart from the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.
Inerrancy deserves high regard among evangelicals and has rightly earned the status of being essential in an epistemological sense to the Christian Faith. Inerrancy simply cannot be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
Christian leaders, theologians and pastors assembled together three times over the course of a decade to address the issue. It is probably the first systematically comprehensive, broadly based, scholarly, creed-like statement on the inspiration and authority of Scripture in the history of the church. Despite this modern safeguard, in , Dr. In other words, he suggested that the events did not actually happen, but that it was lore or legend. What followed is rather alarming. Some did this by misinterpreting inerrancy as expressed by the ICBI framers.
Amazingly, these views continue to gain support among the evangelical community. These are the professors of some of the finest evangelical schools in the nation, who are responsible for training the pastors of today and future generations, and they are saying that they are comfortable with these verses not being factual.
This is an outright departure from the historic definition of inerrancy. This is why the Defending Inerrancy initiative was created. Now we are trying to reach the latest generation of Christian leaders before it is too late. Would you please consider signing our petition and taking a stand for biblical inerrancy. Sign The Petition. And Why Should I Care? But we must remember the term inerrancy is not designed to say everything about the Bible; on the contrary, it is designed to speak to one particular aspect of the Bible's authority, namely, that it contains no false affirmations.
And if that is the purpose, then the term inerrancy seems to capture that idea quite nicely. Now, to be sure, these sorts of concerns are legitimate, and unfortunately some versions of inerrancy fall prey to such mistakes.
However, this objection should not overlook the fact that generations of scholars as well as the Chicago Statement have offered significant nuance, qualification, and explanation regarding exactly what does and does not constitute an "error" for ancient documents.
Inerrancy, properly understood, takes into account issues such as genre, symbolism, inexact quotations, lack of precision, variations in chronological order, observational language, and more.
These considerations remind us that inerrancy only pertains to the Bible's own claims, not the claims we might think or wish it is making. First, there is nothing inappropriate about theological arguments—some doctrines flow naturally from other doctrines that we already believe.
For instance, many of our beliefs about the Trinity are not based on simple proof-texting, but are pieced together from a variety of theological considerations for example, God is one, yet Jesus is God. If we believe the Bible is the very Word of God—that is, when Scripture speaks, God speaks—then it follows that the contents of the Bible are truthful.
One need only consider Jesus' own view of the Old Testament. Time and again, Jesus appeals to Old Testament passages and always receives it as truth, never correcting it, criticizing it, or pointing out inconsistencies.
Indeed, He not only refrained from correcting the Scriptures, but He also affirmed the Scriptures "cannot be broken" John , and that "[God's] Word is truth" John It is unthinkable that Jesus would ever have read an Old Testament passage and declared, "Well, this passage is simply wrong.
Needless to say, this is not the place to resolve all such Bible difficulties. But it is important to recognize that these are serious and complex issues that should not be dismissed lightly. For this reason, evangelical scholars have labored diligently to demonstrate that there are reasonable and plausible solutions to these problems.
Of course, such solutions will not prove convincing to all. Inevitably, evangelicals are and will be charged with ignoring the "clear" evidence in favor of a priori theological commitments. But such charges miss the mark. There is nothing inappropriate about analyzing problematic passages in light of a belief in the truth of Scripture—indeed, that is how God wants us to approach all the problems of life.
When it comes to the importance of belief in the truthfulness of the Bible, it is hard to overstate one's case. If the Bible really makes false claims, then at least its mistaken portions cannot be the voice of our Lord. And if the Bible is a mix of truth and error, how do we identify which is which? Our only recourse is to rely on our own opinion about such matters, allowing us to edit the Bible according to some other standard whatever that might be. In the end, we are left not with God's Word, but our word—a Bible of our own making.
If we are to proclaim with confidence the message of the Bible to a needy world—a message that is often met with scorn and ridicule—we can only do so if we are convinced that this message is, in fact, true. Therefore, in the end, inerrancy proves to be a practical issue for every believer. All complexities and debates aside, it gives the foundation for why we can trust and obey God's Word. Our theology is only as reliable as its source, so an errant source would inevitably lead to false teachings.
Indeed, we could even say that the authority of Jesus Christ is contingent upon the reliability of the Bible. Not only did He believe, expound and obey the Scriptures, he also claimed to fulfill them. If the Bible is not true, not only would we be unsure of the historical Jesus, we could no longer rely on His teachings.
He would either be mistaken or a liar. Fortunately, despite constant attacks from the critics, the Holy Scriptures remain inerrant, authoritive and trustworthy. Before we leave the subject of the authority of Scripture, we should point out the various positions of the Church. There are disagreements within the RCC regarding the Bible and the Church being two sources of inerrant revelation.
Some believe that revelation originates in scriptures and the Church merely reiterates these truths, that is, there are two locations of revelation but only one origin. The more fundamentalist Catholic theologians maintain that inerrant truth originates from both the Scriptures and the traditions. This is not to say that the RCC minimized the inerrancy and authority of Scripture.
On the contrary, Scripture was held in the highest regard, however human traditions were also considered as possessing the same authority. This principle has been widely interpreted by others that the church rejects all truths except for those contained in Scripture.
Sola Scriptura does not discard interpretation, traditions, history, reason or other sources of truth in matters of faith and practice, but proclaims that only the Bible is the final authority over all other sources and methods of revelation.
The Holy Scriptures is the standard that we employ in discerning between truth and falsehood, orthodoxy and heresy. We see the same attitude from Paul, who wrote All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work 2Tim and, referring to the OT, For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope Rom Likewise, the Church has appealed to the Bible throughout history as the norm of truth.
Only in recent centuries, beginning with the Enlightenment, has man relied on his own faulty rationality and experiences in a vain attempt to determine truth.
0コメント