Monday, April 5, 2010

Inerrancy of Scripture - A resolution to the debate

Inerrancy of Scripture has always been a troublesome issue but primarily due to the thinking perspective of classical theology. I would like to refer you to the following link which presents a very reasonable approach to the issue and scope (though limited) of inerrancy.

Although I agree with the Nazarenes on the inerrancy of scripture when it discusses revelation of "the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation", I do not agree that such is the entire scope of inerrancy. If the Bible which we regard as a rule of faith and life is actually only inerrant when it comes to soteriology and heaven-bound ideas, then how reliable are its statements when it comes to other issues that relate to our day to day personal walk with God?

Perhaps this is not what the Nazarenes mean. However, there needs to be a better articulation of the scope of inerrancy. If you have been a reader of this blog, I think you would be bound to agree with the following scope and the reasoning behind it.

Following up on an earlier blog We Will Never Know Everything About God. Really?, I would like to suggest reviewing Jeremiah 9:23,24 as this suggests a wider scope of inerrancy. The Bible is inerrant when it comes to describing how to have a personal covenant-relationship with God. Note that we have always insisted that salvation is only a small part of this, though required and necessary.

The Nazarenes should have stated "in all things necessary and profitable to our personal relationship with God" instead of "in all things necessary to our salvation".

Let me state a case in point and I know there are a multitude of others which the inerrant legalists can cite. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:5 "and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

We know that Christ appeared to the ELEVEN who were left as Judas was already gone. Matthew 28:16 explicitly states "eleven", "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. cf: Mark 16:14, Luke 24:9, Luke 24:33.

Regardless, this has nothing to do at all with the sufficiency and inerrancy of information regarding the scope of inerrancy that we discussed above.

Let me add here that the inerrancy debate is a "words-oriented" debate, which is faulty hermeneutics. People fixate on words and loose the context, so their understanding is erroneous or cultic.

No comments:

Post a Comment