#Biblical inerrancy

[alandemoss]

Top 5 Reasons to Question Biblical Inerrancy and Redefine Your Faith in Jesus

Why Question Biblical Inerrancy? Many evangelical and fundamentalist groups, like the Southern Baptist Convention, teach that the Bible is completely without error. But stories in the Old Testament, like God commanding violence or strict rules that seem unloving, can be hard to reconcile. Questioning beliefs about biblical inerrancy doesn’t mean abandoning faith; it’s about seeking a more honest…

[tmarshconnors]

"People in awe never complain that church is boring."

Robert Charles Sproul was an American Reformed theologian and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. He was the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries and could be heard daily on the Renewing Your Mind radio broadcast in the United States and internationally. 

Born: 13 February 1939, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Died: 14 December 2017 (age 78 years), Altamonte Springs, Florida, United States

Founder of Ligonier Ministries: R.C. Sproul founded Ligonier Ministries in 1971, originally as a study center for college and seminary students. It has since grown into a global multimedia ministry offering books, teaching series, conferences, and an online academy.

Prolific Author and Speaker: Sproul authored over 100 books and numerous articles on theology, philosophy, and Christian living. Some of his most influential works include "The Holiness of God," "Chosen by God," and "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith."

Educator and Theologian: He served as a professor at various theological seminaries and was known for his ability to make complex theological concepts accessible to laypeople. He held degrees from Westminster College, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Free University of Amsterdam.

Reformed Theology Advocate: Sproul was a prominent voice in the Reformed tradition, emphasizing the sovereignty of God, the authority of Scripture, and the doctrines of grace. He was instrumental in popularizing Reformed theology among a broader evangelical audience.

Broadcaster and Media Presence: His teaching series, "Renewing Your Mind," became a well-known radio program that continues to broadcast daily, providing theological education to a wide audience. Sproul's lectures and sermons are also widely available online and have been influential in spreading his teachings.

[brianchilton]

A Pastoral Reflection on Inerrancy

By: T. J. Gentry, D.Min., Ph.D. | November 5, 2023 (This article was prompted by questions submitted to the Bellator Christi site after my recent interview with Dr. Brian Chilton discussing the importance of inerrancy. Here, I offer a pastoral reflection on inerrancy.) I am a pastor and an academic, but my academic training in Scripture and other areas is for the sake of my pastoral ministry,…

[mt1820today]

Dr. Clinton Arnold: The Inerrancy of Scripture

On 5 October 2015, Dr. Clinton Arnold, Dean of the Talbot School of Theology in La Miranda/Califonia, spoke in a devotional on the importance of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Scripture. He based his remarks on a remarkable exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:14-17, which clearly underlines the importance of a clear position on the inspiration of Holy Scripture, especially in times of crisis:

[sethmsparks]

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is entirely true and free from error. This belief is held by many Christians, who see the Bible as the Word of God and therefore as completely trustworthy. Those who deny inerrancy, on the other hand, argue that the Bible contains errors and should not be considered entirely reliable.

However, not all Christians have embraced the idea of inerrancy. Some argue that the Bible is a product of human hands and therefore is subject to the same limitations and flaws as any other human work. Critics of inerrancy point to apparent contradictions and inconsistencies within the text of the Bible as evidence that it is not entirely reliable.

Despite these criticisms, many Christians continue to hold to the belief in inerrancy. They argue that the Bible should be read in its historical and cultural context, and that apparent contradictions can be reconciled through careful study and interpretation. They also point to the many fulfilled prophecies and historical events recorded in the Bible as evidence of its truthfulness.

Those who deny inerrancy often argue that the belief in a completely error-free Bible is not only unfounded, but can also be harmful to one's faith. They argue that insisting on inerrancy can lead to a rigid and legalistic approach to the Bible, in which one is more focused on defending the Bible's supposed perfection than on learning from its teachings. This can prevent individuals from engaging with the Bible in a meaningful way and hinder their spiritual growth.

Furthermore, denying inerrancy does not necessarily diminish one's faith. In fact, for many people, accepting that the Bible is not perfect can deepen their faith and their relationship with God. It allows them to approach the Bible with humility and an open mind, and to view it as a source of guidance and wisdom rather than as a set of rules to be followed blindly.

Additionally, denying inerrancy can also help to protect against extremism and fanaticism. When the Bible is seen as infallible, it can be used to justify all sorts of harmful and dangerous actions. For example, some extremist groups have used the Bible to justify violence and discrimination. By recognizing that the Bible is not perfect and can be subject to interpretation, individuals and communities are better able to avoid these kinds of harmful interpretations.

In conclusion, while the belief in biblical inerrancy is held by many Christians, it is not without its critics. Those who deny inerrancy argue that the Bible contains errors and should not be considered entirely reliable. However, denying inerrancy does not necessarily diminish one's faith, and can even deepen it. Furthermore, it can help to prevent extremism and protect against harmful interpretations of the Bible

[eli-kittim]

Is the Authority of Scripture Biblical?

Eli Kittim

I have a high view of Scripture. But my authority is a Person, not a Book. My authority is God himself, as he reveals to me his will and purpose through spiritual communications. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is “authoritative,” in the sense that it’s reliable and truthful. But it’s quite another thing to say that it’s our highest authority. I think people mistakenly conflate the authority of Scripture with Cessationism, the Calvinist doctrine that spiritual gifts and prophecy ceased with the Apostolic Age. They often cite Jude 1:3 for support. But all that verse says is that “the faith” was revealed to us at some point in human history. It doesn’t say that the Godhead went out of business, took a Sabbatical, or died and left a will. The phrase—“the faith delivered once for all to God's people”—can be disambiguated by examining the context. The other passage cessationists love to quote is 1 Cor. 13:9-10. But all it says is that “we know in part and prophesy in part” because “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with.” But not before the complete comes. That’s the key! It doesn’t say that prophecy has ceased. That would be a misinterpretation. Besides, Acts 2:17 says that people in the end times will prophesy and see visions.

Many people are confusing Scripture’s inspiration, revelation, truthfulness, and inerrancy with the concept of “authority,” which the Oxford languages dictionary defines as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” In short, our highest authority is not the Church, tradition, councils, committees, or even the Bible itself. Our highest authority is Jesus Christ! In Matt. 28:18 (NASB), Christ says:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to Me”

Where does 2 Tim. 3:14–16 mention the authority of Scripture? It says that “the sacred writings … are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” In other words, Scripture gives us wisdom and leads us to salvation which can only be found in Christ Jesus. The fact that Scripture is “inspired” doesn’t mean it represents the final authority. 2 Tim. 3:14–16 reads:

“continue in the things you have learned

and become convinced of, knowing from

whom you have learned them, and that

from childhood you have known the sacred

writings which are able to give you the

wisdom that leads to salvation through faith

which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is

inspired by God and beneficial for teaching,

for rebuke, for correction, for training in

righteousness.”

The fact that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) doesn’t mean that the Bible has the final say in all matters. The Spirit that inspired the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters, not the Bible. Scripture itself does not claim to have all authority. Jesus does.

Moreover, the concept of the Sufficiency of Scripture implies that Scripture itself is all we need to interpret Scripture. But Scripture can be interpreted in 30,000 different ways. Just look at all the Protestant denominations that split due to interpretative differences. Thus, Scripture is neither sufficient to interpret itself, nor is it the final authority. Without the Holy Spirit to illuminate us, we will inevitably misinterpret it (Jn 16:13)!

Where does 2 Pet. 1:20–21 mention the authority of Scripture?

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy

of Scripture becomes a matter of

someone’s own interpretation, for no

prophecy was ever made by an act of

human will, but men moved by the Holy

Spirit spoke from God.”

All it says is that prophecy and its interpretation should be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not interpreted by human beings. If anything, it demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture!

The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the final authority, or that it’s sufficient in and of itself, so that we don’t need anything else. If the Bible is entirely “sufficient” and adequate for all purposes, we wouldn’t need to be reborn. All we would need to do is read our Bibles. But Scripture cannot save anyone. Jesus does. The Spirit is what we need. We can be saved by the Spirit without the Bible. But we can’t be saved by the Bible without the Spirit.

The Bible does not attest to its own authority. Revelation of the Word does not mean ultimate Authority. The fact that God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17) doesn’t mean that the Bible is the highest authority in our lives. As Christ said, it is the Spirit that perfects us, not the Scriptures (Jn 16:13). Luke 24:49 reads:

“But remain … until you have been clothed

with power from on high”

John 3:5 says categorically and unequivocally:

“unless someone is born of … the

Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Likewise, Romans 8:9 puts it thusly:

“But if anyone does not have the Spirit of

Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

In John 5:39-40, Jesus demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture by saying the following:

“You examine the Scriptures because you

think that in them you have eternal life; and

it is those very Scriptures that testify about

Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me

so that you may have life.”

When Jesus says that all will be accomplished according to his Word (Matt. 5:18), he’s talking about prophecy, not the authority of Scripture. I’m not suggesting that Scripture errs or is contradictory. Absolutely not! But let’s not confuse the issues. The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s our final authority, or that it’s entirely sufficient. That would be equivalent to Bibliolatry. The Bible is not a paper Pope. Truth and trustworthiness is one thing. Authority is another.

[kgdrendel]

A Facelift Proposed on the Doctrine of Inerrancy

God guided the circumstances in which the biblical literature was divinely inspired, and God approved the final product

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is just a little older than my Christian faith. It was relatively new when I first read the Bible in college and when I first asked Jesus to be the Lord and Savior of my life. I have wrestled with the idea of inerrancy from the beginning of my Christian life until now. It isn’t that I don’t think the Bible is the “word of God”. It isn’t that I don’t…

[annagracewood]

Do we really believe in Sola Scriptura?

I believe in Sola Scriptura. I stand on it theologically in everything. Sola Scriptura literally means Scripture alone, meaning that Scripture alone is our authority.

Why does Sola Scriptura matter to biblical womanhood? Because without the authority of Scripture, there is no case for biblical womanhood. No Titus 2: 3-5. No Proverbs 31 woman.  Without Sola Scriptura, we have nothing. I stand on Sola Scriptura. I stand on it theologically in everything. Sola Scriptura literally means Scripture alone, meaning that Scripture alone is our authority. I’m a Titus 2…

[ferrell-foster]

Religious fundamentalism hangs by a thin thread

It occurs to me this morning that religious fundamentalism hangs by a very thin thread. That’s why it’s guarded so assiduously. The thread is that every word of an ancient and powerful book is, in fact, the very word of God for all time. Since most people don’t actually read those books they don’t realize that they already have decided certain of those words no longer apply, but they accept the…

[saintmachina]

One million dollar question: is it true that the Bible condems homosexuality? I had a discussion with two conservatives who sent me some verses that seem to confirm that but i don't know much about the context although i know this is important too

Let’s start here: why is this the million dollar question? Why does it matter what the Bible has to say about sex, or love, or human relationships? At the end of the day, it’s just a book, right?

Oceans of ink (and blood) have been spilled over not only what the Bible says, but what it does, how it functions. The course of empires, nations, and families have been shaped by the contents of this book, and from a historical and cultural perspective, it holds a lot of weight. But you didn’t ask about the sociological, you asked about the theological, so let’s explore. 

Different Christian traditions vary in their approach to scripture. For example: some Protestant denominations believe that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. In this paradigm, God is the ultimate author of scripture working through human hands, and the resulting text is both without error and in no way deceptive or mistaken. Similarly, The Second Vatican Council decreed that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” When a member of the clergy is ordained into the Episcopal Church they swear that they “do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.”

Can you see how many of these points of doctrine overlap yet seek to distinguish themselves from one another? Theologians have spent lifetimes arguing over definitions, and even when they manage to settle on solid teachings, the way that the teaching is interpreted by the clergy and incorporated into the lives of the laity varies WIDELY. As much as systematic theology may try, humans aren’t systematic beings. We’re highly contextual: we only exist in relation to others, to history, to circumstance, and to the divine. We simply cannot call up God to confirm church teaching, and I think a lot of people cling excessively to the Bible as a result of the ache (dare I even say trauma) of being separated from God via space and time in the way we currently are.

God is here, but God is not here. God is within us, God is within the beloved, God is within the sea and sky and land, and yet we cannot grasp God to our bodies in the way we long to. In this earthly lifetime, we are forever enmeshed in God, yet forever distinct, and that is our great joy and our great tragedy.

So barring a direct spiritual experience or the actual second coming, we're left to sort through these things ourselves. And because humans are flawed, our interpretations will always be flawed. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives guiding us.

When engaging with any sort of Biblical debate, it is essential that you have a strong understanding of what the Bible means to you, an an embodied individual living a brief little awful and wonderful life on Earth. Otherwise it's easy to get pushed around by other people’s convincing-sounding arguments and sound bites.

Here’s where I show my hand. As a confirmed Episcopalian I believe that reason, tradition, and scripture form the “three-legged stool” upon which the church stands, interdependent and interrelational to each other, but I’ve also like, lived a life outside of books. I’ve met God in grimy alleyways and frigid ocean waters and in bed with my lovers. So my stool is actually four-legged, because I think it’s essential to incorporate one’s personal experience of God into the mix as well. (I did not invent this: it’s called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but the official Wesleyan quadrilateral insists that scripture must trump all other legs of the table in the case of a conflict which...*cynical noises*)

Please do not interpret this answer as me doing a hand-wavey "it's all vibes, man, we're all equally right and equally wrong", but I do absolutely think we have a responsibility as creatures to weigh the suffering and/or flourishing of our fellow creatures against teachings handed down through oral tradition, schisms, imperial takeover of faith, and translation and mistranslation. Do I believe the Bible is sacred, supernatural even, and that it contains all things necessary to find one's way to God, if that is the way God chooses to manifest to an individual in a given lifetime? Absolutely. Do I believe it is a priceless work of art and human achievement that captures ancient truths and the hopes of a people (as well as a record of their atrocities) through symbols, stories, and signs? Unto my death, I do.

However, I am wary of making an object of human creation, God-breathed though it may be, into an idol, and trapping God in its pages like God is some sort of exotic bug we can pin down with a sewing needle.

Finally, we have reached the homosexuality debate. One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is Matthew 5: 15-17: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." In other words: look at what religious teachings have wrought in the world. When I look at homophobic interpretations of the Bible, I see destruction, abuse, suffering, neglect, alienation, spiritual decay, and death. When I look at theology that affirms the holiness of LGBTQ+ relationships, I see joy, laughter, community building, thoughtful care, blooming families, creativity, resilience, and compassion. I see the love of Christ at work in the world. I see the hands of a God who chose under no duress to take up residence in a human body, to drink wine with tax collectors and break bread with sex workers and carry urchin children around on his shoulders. That's my limited little pet interpretation, but hey, that's all any of us really have, at the end of the day.

So, I am absolutely happy to do a play-by-play breakdown of why those passages you were given (we queer Christians often call them "clobber passages" or "texts of terror") don't hold water in a theological, historical, and cultural context. We can talk about Jesus blessing the eunuch and the institution of Greek pederasty and Levitical purity laws and Paul because I've done that reading. I've spent my nights crying in self-hatred and leafing through doctrine books and arguing with my pastors and writing long grad school essays on the subjects. Send me the verses, if you can remember them, and I'll take a look. But it's worth noting that out of the entire Bible, I believe there are only six that explicitly condemn homosexuality AND I'm being generous and including Sodom and Gommorah here, which is a willful and ignorant misreading if I've ever seen one.

In the meantime, I recommend books by people smarter than me! Try Outside The Lines: How Embracing Queerness Will Transform Your Faith by Mihee Kim-Kort, or Does Jesus Really Love Me by Jeff Chu, or Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke!

And take a breath, dear one. Breathe in God, in the droplets of water in the air and in the wind from the south. Breathe in the gift of life, and know that you are loved, now and unto the end of the age and even beyond then.

[psalmicwitch]

Baneful Magic in Christian Witchcraft

There’s a LOT of Christian witches on spheres that aren’t tumblr (on here we’re sort of few!), namely reddit. And one misconception I keep seeing is that Christian witches don’t and can’t practice baneful magic.

For the record, I don’t, and if you’re a Christian witch (or any baby witch, really), I’d highly contemplate if cursing and hexing is a practice you really want to get into.

Why do people say you can’t practice baneful magic as a Christian witch? Couple of sources:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” – Mark 12:30-31

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. – Leviticus 19:18

A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.” – John 13:34

That’s some super compelling scripture, huh?

Here’s some evidence to the contrary:

If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. - Galatians 1:9

May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever. Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them. - Psalm 69:23-24

Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. - Psalm 109:6-9

The psalms are some of the most well recorded, oldest, pieces of magic text of all time. Literal curses are written into the Bible.

If you believe in biblical inerrancy, curses are woven into our sacred text, from the metaphorical mouth of God.

For the record, I don’t believe in biblical inerrancy, and I don’t practice baneful magic. But to blanket that statement and say that all Christian witches do not practice baneful magic is false. Christian witches have likely been weaving curses out of the psalms for centuries.

[brianchilton]

S7E8 Inerrancy: Does It Matter?

By: Brian G. Chilton, Ph.D., M.Div. and T. J. Gentry, Ph.D., D.Min. | October 26th, 2023 S7E8 Inerrancy: Does It Matter? on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRDA9ZYhCt4%5B/embedyt%5D Last week, we discussed the three I’s of Scripture: inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy. Briefly define each “I” for us. Why does it seem that inerrancy gets the most pushback of all three “I’s”? Why is…

[thepatristictradition]

Your "Biblical World View" is just 19th Century Enlightenment Propaganda

Is it just me, or does everyone stroking their ego about how "Biblical" they are, and how "Bible-Believing" they are (protestants, always), always seem to never actually believe the Bible?

I think so many of the tumors growing on the back of Sola Scriptura (where is that in the Bible?) are a result of late enlightenment, materialist philosophies, built on a bedrock of a hermeneutics of suspicion.

I saw a horrific example of this when I read someone discount John John 8:7-11 because, "Well, that section of John wasn't written by John, actually. It was added by scribes, so you shouldn't take it as seriously." Like, what? If this is your take, do you just not believe in any of the Bible? If some part is less Divinely Inspired, if it is less the Word of God, how is any of the Bible to be believed?

This is very funny, please laugh.

What this does is create impossible win conditions verging on, "If Jesus didn't write the Bible with his own earthly hands and leave it on a table for John the Baptist (not Catholic) to copy by hand, then none of it is real." Do you see how stupid that is? It is very stupid, and also very much not the historical view of the Church.

Scripture is Divinely inspired and Inerrant. It is inspired by God and has no Errors. This does not mean all of Genesis as we have it now was written by Moses himself. But all the people who recorded it for him, translated it, recovered it, and edited it were divinely inspired, and their collective work is without error.

I don't care what kind of historiographic view you take on Gospel authorship-- I care that you actually believe in the Bible. This handwringing over, "oh, who really physically wrote xyz," is a product of actual Free Masons, no I am not kidding.

This is what singled-minded, scholarly fixations on the Bible will do to people, and this is exactly why the Church needs Tradition. Tradition is why we have the Bible in the first place-- you're welcome, by the way. Tradition teaches you how to interpret the Bible. It is nothing less than the height of hubris to assume you know better, you are more imbued with the Holy Spirit, and more worthy of interpreting the scriptures than men who knew the apostles personally.

[captainjonnitkessler]

George Hull was an atheist in the 1860s, and he was pretty pissed off at biblical literalists. In particular, he was pissed off about the gullibility of those who insisted that giants had once roamed the earth, simply because it said so in the Bible.

Hull, a big fan of science and the still-new theory of evolution, decided to do what any rational, science-minded man would do: He spent today's equivalent of $60,000 buying a bunch of stone from Iowa, sending it to Chicago to have it fashioned into a giant statue of a man in absolute secrecy, shipping it to his cousin's farm in New York, burying it there in the dead of night, waiting a year, and then having his cousin hire two men to dig a well in that spot so they could "discover" the giant. Obviously.

He and his cousin set up a tent and charged people for admission to see the "Cardiff Giant" and made absolute bank from the hundreds of people per day that flocked to it. Experts insisted it was a hoax, but many people were convinced it was proof of the Bible's inerrancy. Eventually Hull sold his part-interest to David Hannum for today's equivalent of over $500,000. PT Barnum, the infamous showman and ringmaster, then tried to buy it and when Hannum refused to sell, he made his own copy. He declared his to be the original and Hannum's version the fake, potentially leading Hannum to coin the famous phrase "there's a sucker born every minute". He also sued Barnum, but according to Wikipedia "the judge told him to get his giant to swear on his own genuineness in court if he wanted a favorable injunction".

Eventually Hull proudly confessed to the hoax, putting an end once and for all to the debates about either giants' genuineness. Hull claimed that his intent had been to reveal the gullibility of Christians and to refute anti-science religious fundamentalism.

Then he moved to Colorado and did the exact same thing again, except this time he added a tail and called it the "missing link" between humans and apes.

(Big shoutout to the podcast The Constant: A History of Getting Things Wrong, where I first heard about the Cardiff Giant. If you like weird stories from history you need to check out this podcast it is SO fucking good)

[faeriefully]

“So, we begin with biblical balance, weighted somewhat toward unity, and then we start coming into contact with Christians, churches, and ministries about which we must make relationship decisions. Before we look at the different kinds of relationships and associations that may result from this, we need some criteria to help us decide which way to go.

There are four areas to consider when deciding the nature of a relationship with other Christians. The most important area is doctrine. As Christian unity is unity in the truth, we must ask what this Christian or church believes.

However, even before that, we have to ask, what doctrines are fundamental and nonnegotiable? Do we insist on complete agreement on every single truth before we have any kind of association with any Christian or church? If so, one will end up uniting only with oneself.

That's why we need a sliding scale of biblical truths and principles that will determine to what degree we unite or separate. At the top of that scale, we might put the inerrancy of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, justification by faith alone, Jesus as the only way to God, and other primary truths. Without the basic foundation that such truths provide, there can be no spiritual relationship of any kind.”

— David Murray (Degrees of Separation)