Inerrancy/inspiration of the Bible

[Guest]

Thanks damon for the reply.

According to the Didache, most of the leaders of the first century local congregations were prophets. They were the ones who would have been inspired to recognize whether a work was inspired by God or not. There would also have been works that would have been recognized as having historical value but which were not inspired - such as 1 and 2 Maccabees.

What precedent do you find in the Bible that prophets can recognize whether a writing is inspired?

What evidence do you have that the Didache is accurate, without error, infallible, inspired, etc??

Is that what Prophet really means??

Were the men who put together the canon all Prophets?? And what are your grounds for that?

This method of discernment isn't exactly practical today because we don't have prophets who are recognized as such by the Christian community at large. However, before Jesus returns there will be many prophets, including and especially the two witnesses of Revelation 11. Any questions of Scriptural inspiration can be sorted out then.

So are you suggesting that the majority makes things right?? This opens up a lot of questions.

It seems odd that you suggest that the problem of inspiration will be sorted out during the "tribulation".

First, thats a matter of interpretation, which is not held by probably the majority of the world of christians, and if so, that according to your statement regarding recognition by the majority, you cant hold that belief. Secondly, if you dont know the answer to that now, or cant justify it, then why do you assert that claim of inerrancy and inspiration as true??

Remember, this is my question, Can these propositions be justified? Your response, the prophets will tell us, begs the question(because of interpretation problem). And it certainly wont do anything for the skeptic. You will just reinforce their doubt.

Until then, we're left to do the best that we can do with what we do know.

Yes, of course, But Do you KNOW, Damon?? Prove it to me.

[Guest]

hello mattrose,

Even still, the supposed 'errors' that liberals and skeptics find in the Bible are almost always the result of forced literalism and the inspiration/infallability debate doesn't really impact that mindset directly.[/quote]

My concern matt, is not with errors, its with this concept of inerrancy and inspiration, and skeptics are concerned with those concepts.

[Guest]

What precedent do you find in the Bible that prophets can recognize whether a writing is inspired?

If they can't, then who can?

What evidence do you have that the Didache is accurate, without error, infallible, inspired, etc??

I never claimed that it was. However, it does accurately record historical data concerning Christian congregations in the first century AD. One such piece of historical data is that most of the first century congregations were led by prophets.

Is that what Prophet really means??

A prophet is directly inspired by God to understand what is true. They are often directed to proclaim something or do something on His behalf. Sometimes they are called to teach others (Isa. 8:16; Isaiah apparently had disciples). When they do, they're able to spiritually discern how to bring a person up in the faith.

Because prophets have supernatural discernment, which is given to them by God (ex. Jeremiah 28), it would naturally follow that they would be able to discern whether something that had been written in God's name were true or not.

Were the men who put together the canon all Prophets?? And what are your grounds for that?

Paul claimed authority over those who would claim to be prophets (1 Cor. 14:37), so he must have been one himself. Peter claimed to "have a more sure word of prophecy" - which would make him a prophet as well.

In 2 Tim. 4:13, we read that Paul had left a codex with Carpus in Troas. (In the KJV, this is incorrectly translated as a "cloak.") A codex is a primitive form of book. Paul also wanted other "books" and especially "parchments" that he had also left behind. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, we read that Peter knew of Paul's writings. We can infer from these two passages that Paul was apparently keeping copies of what he had written, implying that he knew that they would need to be preserved for future use. So the first "canon" of inspired New Testament writings would technically be Paul's.

So are you suggesting that the majority makes things right?? This opens up a lot of questions.

Let's put it this way. There are no publicly declared prophets who are recognized as such by the Christian community at large. Whether there are prophets who aren't publicly declared is another issue. There aren't even people who are publicly declared prophets whose office is in dispute by the Christian community at large. In other words, some Christians would think they're legit whereas others wouldn't. Pretty much all we have are lunatic fringe wierdos who say many things that never come true, and have ministries that involve little if any Godly love, but most often hellfire and damnation.

It seems odd that you suggest that the problem of inspiration will be sorted out during the "tribulation".

I'm one of the ones who believe that the spirit of God will be poured out shortly prior to the Tribulation. During the tribulation, the two prophets who will still have a public ministry will be in Jerusalem. Regardless, the spirit of prophetic understanding will sort out a lot of contentious issues among the Body of Christ which divide it to this day so that "not one stone is left upon another." Otherwise, the spiritual Temple of God won't be rebuilt and prepared for Christ's return.

Remeber, this is my question, Can these propositions be justified? Your response, the prophets will tell us, begs the question. And it certainly wont do anything for the skeptic. You will just reinforce their doubt.

But this isn't the way I would attempt to explain Christianity to a skeptic. I would instead talk about the plan of God and Jesus Christ, and what it means for us today. If they had intellectual objections - such as whether the books of the bible were inspired - then I wouldn't bother trying to convince them because the Gospel is all about the heart, not the intellect.

Yes, of course, But Do you KNOW, Damon?? Prove it to me.

I'd rather not try to prove it to you. In John 16:13 we read that the Holy Spirit is able to guide us into all truth. God, through the Holy Spirit, has sufficiently proven to me personally that the bible I have is sure and not subject to questions of whether it's inspired or not. But that kind of proof isn't something I could pass along to anyone else. If they're that worried about it FROM THE HEART, and not from the intellect, then they should pray and ask God to reveal to them whether they can rely on the bible or not.

That's the best that I can offer.

Damon

[Guest]

STEVE,

I like your response. It seems to me that this (the Bible as authoritative) might be the only position to take. Using the term inerrancy and inspiration toward the general doctrine and not the specifics, like the words and numbers, might be allowable.

And no one has shown any justification (as far as I can tell), supporting the "traditional" use of Inerrancy and Inspiration.

My only problem left then, is I dont know how anyone can have any absolute certainty toward the reliability of the Scriptures(Authority), thus never objectively true. If this is the case, then in would follow that we only can have certainty through the subjective route.

But this is not the usual way people try to defend the Scriptures, So can anyone give me absolute certainty, or is it true that we only can "know" (epistemologically) this truth regarding Scripture subjectively.

It then would follow that we cannot "know" that God "is", objectively, but only subjectively.

Best wishes, Jim d.

[Guest]

Hi Jim,

It is enough (for me) that the biblical statements are true and reliable. Whether they are, in every case, "inspired," is a secondary concern. With reference to the prophetic writings (i.e., the Old Testament), my own understanding of the prophets' inspiration would lead me to expect inerrancy in their writings. However, being "inspired" in their message might conceivably leave room for their own flawed attitudes to manifest--as in the case of Moses, the second time he struck the rock; or Jonah's attitude in the end of that book; or Jeremiah's, when he complained that God had "deceived" him (Jer.20:7); or the psalmist who delighted in the prospect of the Babylonians having their children dashed against the rocks (Ps.137:9). The message is inspired., though the messenger may be flawed (think, for example, of Balaam!).

As for the New Testament, as I have said, there is nothing like a claim that the writers were inspired in the sense that the prophets were inspired. Though Damon said that Paul's placing regulations upon the prophets must mean that he too was a prophet, I am more inclined to think that Paul weilded authority over the prophets because he was an apostle, which is an office superior to that of a prophet (1 Cor.12:28). The writers of the New Testament do not claim to be prophets, but, as I said earlier, their authority rested in their apostolic credentials.

Though I said I would obey the teachings of the apostles, even if they were not infallible or inerrant, this does not mean that I have any doubts about their competence to write the truth concerning the things they addressed in their writings. I myself, without claiming to be inerrant, could conceivably write a treatise free from error, so long as I had an adequate command of the subject matter and wrote in all candor.

Luke does not claim to write under inspiration, but he does claim to have comprehensive knowledge (lit. "perfect understanding") of his topic (Luke 1:3). If this is the case, then I expect his writings (which comprise about a fourth of the New Testament) to be true and accurate, whether he is inspired or not. The same is true of the other gospel writers, who were probably all eye-witnesses of the majority of the things they recorded, and had Jesus as their source for things that only He would know (e.g., the temptation in the wilderness). If Matthew mistakenly thought he was quoting from the book of Jeremiah, when he was actually citing a passage in Zechariah (Matt.27:9), what of it? I often hear preachers mistakenly attribute a saying of Paul or James to Jesus. This may show that the speaker is not infallible, but it does nothing to undermine the validity of the point he is making by the citation, or his competence to record the things that he knows and is transmitting by writing.

Paul claimed that some of the things he said were inspired (e.g. 1 Tim.4:1), that some of them had been previously taught by Christ in His earthly ministry (1 Cor.7:10), and that some were simply Paul's judgment as a mature Christian (1 Cor.7:25). Sometimes he claimed that instructions he was giving were to be regarded as "the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor.14:37), while, on other occasions, he merely gave his "advice" (2 Cor.8:10).

The gospel Paul preached among the Gentiles was given to him "by revelation" (Gal.1:11-12) and was thus counted as "the word of God" (1 Thess.2:13). He also claimed to have superior "knowledge" of the subject that he called "the mystery of Christ" (Eph.3:4), which is the doctrine of the church as the Body of Christ. He does claim that he received this particular insight by revelation (v.5), though he does not suggest that he was experiencing simultaneous inspiration at the time of his writing about it in the Ephesian epistle.

Paul was the recipient of unique revelations from God, some of which he was appaerntly not even free to repeat (2 Cor.12:1ff). I am inclined to trust his opinion above my own--I who have never once seen a visin of Christ nor been caught-up into the third heaven.

Thus Paul's expertise on his subject matter was very impressive--some of which he received by direct revelation and the teaching of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:10-13); some, by his contact with other apostles and eye-witnesses (e.g., his knowledge of the sayings of Jesus, including some not found in the gospels--Acts 20:35); and some, he may simply have reasoned out for himself, having "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor.2:16). In any case, Paul never wrote upon any subject but that upon which he was competent to speak, and I personally trust everything that he said.

Besides, Paul (like Peter, Matthew, John and James) was an apostle, chosen by Christ to speak to us on Christ's behalf. I do not think Christ made so poor a choice as to select a man who could not be trusted to speak the truth faithfully. He said, "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry" (1 Tim.1:12).

None of the New Testament writers extended themselves beyond the range of their expertise, and I am convinced that I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their statements. Paul seldom claimed inspiration for his words, but he often affirmed that his words were true (e.g., Acts 26:25/Rom. 9:1/2 Cor.4:2; 6:7; 7:14; 13:8/Gal.1:20; 4:16/ 1 Tim.1:15; 2:7; 4:9/ 2 Tim.2:11/ Titus 3:8).

Therefore, if it is the truth that I am seeking on any subject, I need look no further than the apostolic and prophetic writings of the two testaments.

[Guest]

Hi Steve. Just a minor quibble.

Though Damon said that Paul's placing regulations upon the prophets must mean that he too was a prophet, I am more inclined to think that Paul weilded authority over the prophets because he was an apostle, which is an office superior to that of a prophet (1 Cor.12:28 ).

True, Paul was an apostle and that office is superior to that of a prophet, but what I meant was that the office of apostle includes the ability to act as a prophet as well as the duties and responsibilities of apostleship.

Other than that, I second everything you said above.

Damon

[Guest]

hi steve,

I agree with you that the "authority" angle seems like the best argument for the justification of using Scripture for doctrine, etc.

Let me clarify my problem that was not answered. Without the original documents, the best we come is an "inference to the best explanation" (or what is likely to be true).

But that does not lead one to claim complete certainty. So what justification is there for someone to hold the belief that they are certain of the reliability of the Scriptures in an objective manner??

If there isnt any, and we cant "know" with certainty, then my question is, why is it claimed that the Scriptures are reliable. To me, that seems to ensue that there is certainty regarding that issue.

It seems then, that we have to make a leap, no matter how big or small, of faith to hold that belief. But than it becomes a subjective justification, no matter by the Spirit of God, or by reason, or intuition, etc.

IF this is the case, than i dont see how anyone can claim objectively we know the Scriptures are Reliable.

It then comes to a Subjective position on truth, rather than an objective one.

And that is my point. And my question that follows is, "why then do we claim truth can be known objectively regarding the Scriptures and God??

I hope this is more clear. Thanks jd

[Guest]

Hi Jim.

As far as what can be "objectively known" about anything, for me it boils down to likelihoods. Given the large percentage of agreement of the texts that we do have, the greatest likelihood is that what has been preserved has been almost completely accurately transmitted to us. Circumstantial evidence this may be, but it's good enough for a court room. *shrugs*

Damon

[Guest]

Yo Jim!

I am not sure why you feel that this question wasn't answered, Bro.

To say that I have a reliable source for any kind of information, religious or secular, does not require that I have a supernaturally-inspired source for that information. I can claim certainty about many things for which no infallible source can be appealed to.

I believe that the sun is the center of our solar system, that there is a place called Spain, and that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the Unioted States. I can state these things with certainty—yet I have nothing resembling an inspired or inerrant document or person informing these beliefs. What I have is the testimony of competent and reliable men who know and have experienced more than I have, and whose testimony I have no reason to doubt.

I believe (for the reasons mentioned previously) that I have as sure a basis for my belief in the historical events recorded in scripture and for the doctrines of Christianity derived from there as I could wish to have for any information on any other subject. The inspired writings of the Old Testament could hardly be in error (being inspired by God), and the historical data of the New Testament has eye witnesses as its sources. What could be more reliable than this?

The words of Jesus come from an infallible Person, and the Holy Spirit brought those words to the recollection of men who had heard Him speak. How could I ask for a better basis than this for my accepting them? If I choose to doubt anything in the scriptures, then, to be consistent, I would have to doubt everything I have ever learned from any book or from any witness on any subject, religious or secular.

I think it would seem more extreme and unreasonable (bordering on gratuitous stubbornness) for me to be skeptical of the scriptures than for me to believe them, given their impeccable credentials (described in my previous post).

It is true that, if inerrant documents are essential to certainty about a matter, we may have difficulty finding proof that the scriptures possess this quality. But then, if this condition applies, we also are left without certainty on any academic subject in the realm of history, geography, natural science, current events, or any other field for which our information depends upon any source other than our personal experinces. Speaking only for myself, I cannot live with infinite skepticism about all reality, and I therefore choose to believe well-established truths that are documented in reliable sources. And so does everyone else.

[Guest]

Well, thanks for everyone's responses.

I dont want to beat a dead horse anymore. My main question, was really fueled by the epistemological concerns regarding knowledge, and more specifically, testimony (because of the claim regarding the Scriptures).

If anyone is familiar with Kierkegaard among others, you know what i am getting at. I still contend that we can only really know with certainty, these things by faith, even if they may be likely or not. Just like knowing God, the certainty of the Scriptures only comes by way of the subjective...........and can not be known or justified objectively.

Thanks, Jim