Inerrancy/inspiration of the Bible

[Guest]

I have for some time wondered if the idea that the writings of the New test. and the Old Test. should be considered Inerrant, and with the N.T. , if it can all be considered inspired by God.

One typical response is that the Scriptures are inerrant in their original autographs. That may be so, but how does anyone know? We dont have any of the originals. And the earliest copies we do have, arent that that close to the originals. In most cases, we dont have much of the N.T. until the 4th Century.

To suggest they are inerrant because God doesnt make any mistakes, thus the Scriptures must be perfect, doesnt seem to justify that claim. It just seems to beg the question. I dont see how an attribute of God can be applied to something some men wrote.


My other thought is regarding inspiration of the N.T. Again, the appeal to 2Tim 3:16, to justify inspiration begs the question. And besides, Paul seems to be referring to the O.T. Secondly, it is often suggested that it is because Peter associated Pauls writings with the other scriptures. I dont know if that is what peter had in mind, but even if he did, then how is the non-pauline literature inspired??

[Guest]

I have for some time wondered if the idea that the writings of the New test. and the Old Test. should be considered Inerrant, and with the N.T. , if it can all be considered inspired by God.

One typical response is that the Scriptures are inerrant in their original autographs. That may be so, but how does anyone know? We dont have any of the originals.

Good point.

And the earliest copies we do have, arent that that close to the originals. In most cases, we dont have much of the N.T. until the 4th Century.

Actually, I possess transcripts of ALL the extant manuscripts of the New Testament before the year 325 A.D. These transcripts make up a 700 page book! Many of the early papyri were copied in the third century, and several, for example papyrus 66, was copied in the middle of the second century (about 150 A.D).

To suggest they are inerrant because God doesnt make any mistakes, thus the Scriptures must be perfect, doesnt seem to justify that claim. It just seems to beg the question. I dont see how an attribute of God can be applied to something some men wrote.

My other thought is regarding inspiration of the N.T. Again, the appeal to 2Tim 3:16, to justify inspiration begs the question.

Let's not confuse inspiration with inerrancy. I believe the writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Spirit of God. The question I would ask is what evidence is there that the Bible is EXCLUSIVELY inspired?
For example, the letter of Paul's helper Clement (and possibly an apostle) to the Corinthains shortly after Paul and Peter's death. Nearly all studies indicate that it was genuine. Second century Christians read it in their churches, and considered it as having equal authority to that of the other apostles. Is it excluded simply because it didn't make Athanasius' list (fourth century) which he called "wells of salvation" and applied the words of Revelation to it? (Whoever adds or takes away from this book.....)

And besides, Paul seems to be referring to the O.T.

Corrrect.

Secondly, it is often suggested that it is because Peter associated Pauls writings with the other scriptures.

The primary meaning of the Greek word "graphe" is "writing". It is used for ANY writing, inspired or non-inspired. In English the word "scriptures" began to mean exclusively those writings in the "canon".

I dont know if that is what peter had in mind, but even if he did, then how is the non-pauline literature inspired??

I think he who has the Spirit of Christ recognizes the inspiration of a writing. Perhaps there is no external evidence.

[Guest]

[
You stated
Actually, I possess transcripts of ALL the extant manuscripts of the New Testament before the year 325 A.D. These transcripts make up a 700 page book! Many of the early papyri were copied in the third century, and several, for example papyrus 66, was copied in the middle of the second century (about 150 A.D).

That is interesting. I was referring to manuscripts that were part of one copy, such as the Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus. Otherwise, having verses, and chapters, separated, and not together, dont conclusively show that those writings were together in the originals, as might the ones i listed above.
But this doesnt help my question of inerrant originals , which is my concern here.



You stated
Let's not confuse inspiration with inerrancy. I believe the writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Spirit of God. The question I would ask is what evidence is there that the Bible is EXCLUSIVELY inspired?
For example, the letter of Paul's helper Clement (and possibly an apostle) to the Corinthains shortly after Paul and Peter's death. Nearly all studies indicate that it was genuine. Second century Christians read it in their churches, and considered it as having equal authority to that of the other apostles. Is it excluded simply because it didn't make Athanasius' list (fourth century) which he called "wells of salvation" and applied the words of Revelation to it? (Whoever adds or takes away from this book.....)


Yes, i agree with that question and concern. I have often wondered about the Clement letter, as well as the possibility of inspiration carried on through other writers, such as the patristics. I dont think i am confusing inerrancy with inspiration.

I am concerned with how either is established. And that response only adds to my concern.


you stated
I think he who has the Spirit of Christ recognizes the inspiration of a writing. Perhaps there is no external evidence.[/quote]


This sounds a bit Kierkegaardian. I think that opens the door to any christian to claim just about any writing to be inspired by God. If this is so, i dont see how there can be any objective standard, let alone any type of canon of writings.

I still dont see how Scripture is considered inerrant, and inspired by God.

[Guest]

I came across this passage from Clement's letter to the Corinthians, chapter 47, this morning:

Take up the letter of the blessed apostle Paul. What did he write to you in the beginning of the gospel? Truly he wrote to you spiritually concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, for also then you had inclinations for one above another.

The word "spirtually" is understood by some translators as "under the inspiration of the Spirit". See for example, the translation of Clement's letter in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" by the Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, LL.D.

These volumes can be read and downloaded from the internet.

I am unable to find it right now, but I also recall reading from one of the second century writers something to this effect:

"In the scriptures, you can find nothing of a false or unjust character..."

When and if I find it again, I'll give you the reference.

[Guest]

It seems obvious that we need a "canon" or measuring rod of some kind to know what is Christian truth and what is not.

Many say that there exists a "canon" of Scripture, namely the 66 books of the Old and New Testament, and that this is the only foundation for truth.

I am going to suggest a different measuring rod or "canon".
First, Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to man. So what He says should be primary. Secondly, He taught the twelve, and so what they said or wrote should be our next consideration for Christian truth (Judas Iscariot excepted of course). Thirdly, the elders that the apostles established in the early churches.

Here is how Clement put it in his letter to the Corinthians (chapter 62):

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us at the command of the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so at the command of God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both things were done then in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders... [the apostles] went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first tested them in the Spirit, to be overseers and deacons of those who should afterward believe.

[Guest]

YOU STATED:

I am going to suggest a different measuring rod or "canon".
First, Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to man. So what He says should be primary. Secondly, He taught the twelve, and so what they said or wrote should be our next consideration for Christian truth (Judas Iscariot excepted of course). Thirdly, the elders that the apostles established in the early churches.

Thanks for the response Paidion, I get the sense you may be of the original movement of the Christians, east or west, i do not know??
Your handling of Scripture is also similiar to N.T. Wright. Is it?

Anyhow, one problem i have is that at least half of the N.T. wasnt from the original 12. (Luke and Paul) John had a Vision, from where?

Secondly, how does one justify that they are inerrant?? Remember, this is one of my main concerns.

How is it that the 12 are inspired by God?? (This is concern #2) According to you, they are just recording what Jesus said, or taught them.
How does is follow from this, that the writings are Inspired from God?


Third, if we appeal to some of the Elders of the Early Church, are we to accept Modalism, Arianism, Gospel of Thomas, other Gnostic writings, That Jesus was 50, etc. etc. I think you understand what i am saying here.

And if not, then how can we use any kind of "canon", he we dont have any originals of the writings, including enough of the originals from Clement, Papias, Polycarp, etc??

How do we draw those conclusions without begging the question??

[Guest]

Hi Jim.

I have another suggestion on how to handle the question of inspired writings. The problem is that it's not exactly a practical method, although it would have been in the first century.

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.

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.

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

Damon

[_Steve]

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion above, and the thoughtfulness of the original question. (I also appreciate the fact that Jim is one of the few modern people whom I have read who actually uses the expression "begs the question" properly—most people use it as if it means the same thing as "invites the question").

It seems to me that the question of inerrancy arose as a fundmentalist response to the rise of "modernism" a couple of centuries ago. The modernists (now we call them "liberals") challenged the inspiration, reliability and authority of the scriptures, and the fundamentalists arose to defend these things, appealing to a concept that they called "inerrancy." It has never been clear to me whether this extrabiblical term means "without error" or "incapable of erring."

If the former, then it only means that all the statements in the Bible are correct, unassailable and reliable. I think this idea is defensible, depending upon how we mean it. I mean there may be mistatements in the Bible, as well as grammarical and other technical errors. But this does not mean that the Bible's teaching is untrue or unreliable in any way.

For example, Paul made an error in stating that, in Corinth, he had only baptized Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor.1:14), but he immediately corrected himself (v.16). Therefore it cannot be said that the Bible teaches error in this case, since it contains both the error and the retraction.

The second meaning would suggest that the writers we operating under a supernatural influence that rendered them incapable of being mistaken. I do not necessarily see this second idea declared to be true in any passage of scripture, though it is the view I was raised with and believed through most of my life. This would be a reasonable inference about the Old Testament, insofar as its books were penned by "holy men of God" who spoke (it does not say "wrote") as they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). It is less clear that any such claim should be made concerning the New Testament.

There is reason to accept the inspiration of much of the New Testament material. For example, Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth and would remind them of what He had said...so the doctrinal statements of the apostles, and the records of the teachings and sayings of Christ may reasonably be said to have been supernaturally preserved and written by those men (John 14:26).

Also, the application of the Old Testament prophecies to New Testament truth may be fully trusted, since "Jesus opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45).

But these statements only mean that the apostles understood and remembered the truth accurately, by the aid of the Holy Spirit. None of this speaks of any supernatural influence coming upon them at the particuler moment that they put the pen to the parchment.

Anyone who reads my answers here or who listens to my teaching will know that I believe in the absolute authority of the scriptures. This means that Christians must bow and submit to the teachings of the apostles and prophets who wrote them. However, this belief does not necessarily demand a belief that the writings of apostles, contained in the New Testament, were either "inspired" in the same sense that those of the prophets were, nor necessarily infallible.

We know, after all, that apostles could make mistakes (Paul had to publicly rebuke Peter—both of them apostles—meaning that one of them was certainly in the wrong—Galatians 2:11ff). Paul confessed that his knowledge was not exhaustive, and that there were things he did not know (1 Cor.13:9). Lacking omniscience, Paul and other apostles were certainly capable of being mistaken on one thing or another.

The usual answer to this, given by fundamentalists, is that, even if the writers were personally fallible in their private lives, they were supernaturally rendered incapable of error while writing their books. This sounds exactly like the claim made by Roman Catholics that a fallible man, the Pope, become infallible the moment he speaks "ex cathedra." It also makes a claim for the writers of the New Testament that none of them makes for himself, and thus is an extrabiblical belief.

So how can I acknowledge the capability of the apostles to err and still believe in the absolute authority of the scriptures? Simply thus: "The boss may not always be right, but he is always the boss." I do not believe that any misconceptions of any of the apostles have entered into their writings, since, by the time they wrote, they had pretty much settled most of their earlier confusion (such as that regarding circumcision of the Gentile converts). I am comfortable in believing every doctrine and every assertion in the Bible. However, if Paul had given instructions about which I was not sure of his "inspiration," it would not give me a moment's pause about obeying him nonetheless.

An apostle is an authoritative representative, to whom someone else has given the power of attorney to act on his behalf. The apostles of Jesus Christ have such authority from Christ (John 20:21) . To receive them is the same as receiving Christ Himself (John 13:20). If Jesus gave me instructions, the question of His inerrancy would never cross my mind before I hastened to carry out His bidding. It is less a matter of His inerrancy than one of who He is, and what authority He weilds over my life. The same is true of the things said by the apostles.

Of course, Paul and the twelve were apostles of Jesus Christ, but what about Mark, Luke, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews? Were they apostles in the same sense? We may never know for sure, but it does not appear that these men held status equal to the apostles.

So why do we accept their writings? I do because they traveled with, and labored under the supervision of the apostles. Mark wrote his gospel under the supervision of Peter, and Luke wrote while traveling with (or imprisoned with) Paul. Jude was the brother of Jesus and James (the latter is called an apostle in Galatians 1:19, and Jesus....well, we know who He was!). The writer of Hebrews traveled with Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), who was himself inseparable from Paul, so we know that this writer must have been close to Paul also. The same might be said for Clement of Rome, though it is not known for certain whether he is the same man mentioned in Philippians 4:3.

The bottom line is, these men could not have produced and distributed their works without the knowledge and approval of the apostles with whom they so closely associated. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that their books have the apostles' approval...and what the apostles approved, I am bound to approve as well.

[Guest]

Thanks for the good discussion in this thread everyone...I have enjoyed it.

I think the view Steve just expressed is very possible

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.

[Guest]

If any one is interested to know what "begging the question" means, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question