by jimwalton » Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:19 pm
"inerrant" is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define, and in my opinion it's the wrong word to try to describe the authority of the Bible.
The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Without error" quickly becomes a phrase with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, can we say there's an error there or not? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it an error? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion. Maybe it's better to affirm what the Bible itself reveals about its origin, authority, and truthfulness, without trying to box it in with an inadequate term such as "without error", an insufficient phrase to describe the fullness of the Bible's authority.
1. God speaks only truth, and has inspired the Scriptures to reveal Himself.
2. The Bible is of full divine authority.
3. The Holy Spirit superintended its writing and authenticates the text.
4. We cannot reduce the text to a document subject to our human assessments about what in it is worthy vs. what should be disregarded.
We wrestle with words like inerrancy, infallibility, reliability, and accuracy. None of the words rise to meet the true standards of the Bible. We know that God accommodated the inadequacies of language to bring us His Word. "Without error" has an essential role to play, but also has limitations.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:19 pm.