Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvibaptist Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer
The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.
| Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do. | I think you're missing the point.
Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?
A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone. |
If, by inerrant, you just mean "true," then I have no problem with it. But the word "inerrant" is dripping with theological meaning that is usually reserved for the Scripture alone. I believe the Confession is true. The problem with using the word "inerrant" is that, for most people, that puts it on the same level as Scripture. You and everyone else on this board are not saying that, but most people who know a little about Christianity would interpret it that way.
BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.