Inerrancy, Help for a Friend

[Ed Walsh]

Dear Friends,

I received the following email from a www.reformed.org visitor and am hoping you will give me a little guidance on how best to help this brother.
Thanks in advance.

-----------------------------
​

Hi,

I am hoping you can help me with a matter concerning someone I care about.

As a person who has been a Christian over 36 years now. I don’t remember a time during all that time I did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. That is saying a lot seeing I was saved in the Salvation Army and a few years later, I became a Pentecostal. Then through God’s providence I was faced with the doctrines of Grace and eventually embraced them wholeheartedly. I now am involved in a Reformed Baptist Church.

Both the Salvation Army and the Pentecostal Church (P.A.O.C) affirm the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. In fact when I was in the Pentecostal Church I met my friend whom I am writing this about. He was in my wedding party over 34 years ago.

Recently, I was in a Facebook conversation with my friend and the subject of the Inerrancy of Scripture came up. Unfortunately, he said that this doctrine is not biblical. When I told him that this was a doctrine that among the few doctrines that unite Protestant Churches, including the P.A.O.C. can actually agree on. He said, he could care less, because it is clear that even the Gospels themselves have discrepancies, however he does not need an inerrant Bible, he needs an inerrant God, who speaks with authority in the Scriptures. I tried to show him that he was mistaken about the discrepancies, but to no avail.

He went onto say that he believes that anybody who insists on an inerrant Bible, is guilty of making an idol of Scripture. Also that to equate 2 Tim. 3:16 “Inspiration of God” (God breathed) with infallible and inerrant, is simply wrong.

The conversation kind of eroded from there and he told me the following quote. “Christians have His Spirit in them, not a doctrinal statement of agreement. Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."-- Since you have abandoned speaking in tongues it is questionable if you are truly saved.” (Please note, this is something that the P.A.O.C. would disagree with.)

What he said hurt a bit, but I am very concerned about him.

Based on what I have said above, how would you have handled the subject had someone you cared about said all this to you?

 

[Gforce9]

Ed,
First, this individual needs prayer and has received it from here. I'm not sure even a sound argument from a J. Ligon Duncan or Joe Pipa would convince him at this juncture (in their sleep, either one would give a much sounder argument than I am capable of delivering in my most cogent moments...). My personal approach, however, for better or worse, is to help one taste their own theology and then report on how they like the taste. Press the Scriptures testimony about itself. If it says it is God breathed, is the Author lying? If it is God-authored, what does that mean if not inspired, inerrant and infallible? Exactly how is believing God's written word idolatry?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Ed,

This would be my own approach:

First, about the tongues business—without getting into cessation at all—I’d quote him 1 Cor 12:30, “Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?”, where Paul rhetorically indicates that all did not speak in tongues, even back in his day.

About inerrancy, ultimately it is decided by Scripture, which may be by inference (as are other crucial doctrines, such as the Trinity), or direct statements. It also depends on the ability to make that statement concerning the Bible you use.

When Jesus says in Matt 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, and Peter says in 2 Pet 1:3, “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” [emphases added], it is clear that if we must live by every word of God, and He has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, He has provided this for us.

If someone wants to argue about what Jesus meant by “every word”, I would refer them to what the LORD told Jeremiah in Jer 26:2,

“Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word”.​

Even the smallest words are to be retained, and none to be added, as is clear: Rev 22:18, 19; Deut 4:2; Prov 30:6; Deut 12:32.

That it is part of our heritage—His covenant with us—as the LORD’s people to have His book intact, Isaiah says this,

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD,
from henceforth and for ever (Isa 59:21).​

Although it will not impress your friend, but for your own assurance, our WCF, at 1:8, affirms this:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. [emphasis added]​

What is required is an understanding of how we got the Reformation’s Textus Receptus, and what its transmission history is. Yes, this is a much disputed matter in these days of the church’s doctrinal decline, but it is worth pursuing, if only for your own benefit—and those you communicate with.

 

[Dachaser]

Dear Friends,

I received the following email from a www.reformed.org visitor and am hoping you will give me a little guidance on how best to help this brother.
Thanks in advance.

-----------------------------
​

Hi,

I am hoping you can help me with a matter concerning someone I care about.

As a person who has been a Christian over 36 years now. I don’t remember a time during all that time I did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. That is saying a lot seeing I was saved in the Salvation Army and a few years later, I became a Pentecostal. Then through God’s providence I was faced with the doctrines of Grace and eventually embraced them wholeheartedly. I now am involved in a Reformed Baptist Church.

Both the Salvation Army and the Pentecostal Church (P.A.O.C) affirm the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. In fact when I was in the Pentecostal Church I met my friend whom I am writing this about. He was in my wedding party over 34 years ago.

Recently, I was in a Facebook conversation with my friend and the subject of the Inerrancy of Scripture came up. Unfortunately, he said that this doctrine is not biblical. When I told him that this was a doctrine that among the few doctrines that unite Protestant Churches, including the P.A.O.C. can actually agree on. He said, he could care less, because it is clear that even the Gospels themselves have discrepancies, however he does not need an inerrant Bible, he needs an inerrant God, who speaks with authority in the Scriptures. I tried to show him that he was mistaken about the discrepancies, but to no avail.

He went onto say that he believes that anybody who insists on an inerrant Bible, is guilty of making an idol of Scripture. Also that to equate 2 Tim. 3:16 “Inspiration of God” (God breathed) with infallible and inerrant, is simply wrong.

The conversation kind of eroded from there and he told me the following quote. “Christians have His Spirit in them, not a doctrinal statement of agreement. Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."-- Since you have abandoned speaking in tongues it is questionable if you are truly saved.” (Please note, this is something that the P.A.O.C. would disagree with.)

What he said hurt a bit, but I am very concerned about him.

Based on what I have said above, how would you have handled the subject had someone you cared about said all this to you?

Ed, would be nice to see just how your friend efined what inerrancy actually means, as sometimes the neanings vesed in it are different from one to another! The original manuscripts/books were totally without any errrs within them, being inspired from te Lord, but there are kinown errors in texts since then in the copying process, and there are also variants issues and places where there are no 100% certainity on what original texts stated down. Those "mistakes" do not affect at all any doctrines of the faith tough. He also should read inerrancy by Norman Geisler on this topic.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The man in question cannot be sure of his own postulate, other than by assertion of his own unquestionable integrity. While he's not likely to admit it, the actual position of those who reject the accuracy and reliability of Scripture, while claiming to be guided by the Spirit (and producing a Scripture--inaccurate and unreliable--"proof" to support themselves) is this:

I am my ultimate authority. Whatever comes into my mind, I've already decided it must be divine wisdom. I possess truth in advance of facts.
​

These are not people who are in submission to God, whether his Spirit or his Word, which really are always harmonious complements. This fellow can never be corrected by the Spirit-and-Word, because whatever he doesn't like in the Word must (a priori) be out of accord with his true "feelings." He's a StarWars theologian, not a biblical one.

For Jesus' declaration (found in Scripture) to mean anything--"Search the Scripture," Jn.5:39--it must presuppose accuracy and reliability. If Scripture lacks integrity, Jesus' witness (whether it is a command or commendation) is false. It loses all force if both the declaration itself in the "discrepancy-ridden" Gospel, and all its putative reference to the OT is vitiated by uncertainty.

By his own admission, he has used a man-made "ruler" to judge the integrity of the Bible. Whether he has done any of that work himself or has merely accepted the opinions of admitted infidels like BEhrman, the Word has been demoted from position as Judge to which all must submit to being the defendant in the dock. This man's verdict against the Word is that it is "guilty" of failing to measure up to his supreme standard: namely his own natural judgment.

 

[Gforce9]

The man in question cannot be sure of his own postulate, other than by assertion of his own unquestionable integrity. While he's not likely to admit it, the actual position of those who reject the accuracy and reliability of Scripture, while claiming to be guided by the Spirit (and producing a Scripture--inaccurate and unreliable--"proof" to support themselves) is this:

I am my ultimate authority. Whatever comes into my mind, I've already decided it must be divine wisdom. I possess truth in advance of facts.
​

These are not people who are in submission to God, whether his Spirit or his Word, which really are always harmonious complements. This fellow can never be corrected by the Spirit-and-Word, because whatever he doesn't like in the Word must (a priori) be out of accord with his true "feelings." He's a StarWars theologian, not a biblical one.

For Jesus' declaration (found in Scripture) to mean anything--"Search the Scripture," Jn.5:39--it must presuppose accuracy and reliability. If Scripture lacks integrity, Jesus' witness (whether it is a command or commendation) is false. It loses all force if both the declaration itself in the "discrepancy-ridden" Gospel, and all its putative reference to the OT is vitiated by uncertainty.

By his own admission, he has used a man-made "ruler" to judge the integrity of the Bible. Whether he has done any of that work himself or has merely accepted the opinions of admitted infidels like BEhrman, the Word has been demoted from position as Judge to which all must submit to being the defendant in the dock. This man's verdict against the Word is that it is "guilty" of failing to measure up to his supreme standard: namely his own natural judgment.

Outstanding!

 

[Tom Hardy]

Ed, would be nice to see just how your friend efined what inerrancy actually means, as sometimes the neanings vesed in it are different from one to another! The original manuscripts/books were totally without any errrs within them, being inspired from te Lord, but there are kinown errors in texts since then in the copying process, and there are also variants issues and places where there are no 100% certainity on what original texts stated down. Those "mistakes" do not affect at all any doctrines of the faith tough. He also should read inerrancy by Norman Geisler on this topic.

 

[Tom Hardy]

I am the person that sent the e-mail to Ed. I thank you for your response and I want to assure you that I have researched the issue of the inerrancy of Scripture and I actually gave my friend a link to an RC Sproul article on what the inerrancy of scripture means and what it does not mean. The short answer to that is ""The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact" (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 90). Based on his responses to me, I actually don't think he paid much attention to it. However, when he found out that I am Reformed in my theology, he sure jumped on it. I am guessing that Face Book conversation had about 45 entries. As you probably noticed from what Ed revealed, that he doubts that I am saved because I stopped speaking in tongues. I can tell you, he didn't learn that from the Pentecostal Church we met at. They do not equate tongues with salvation, they equate it to evidence that we have been "baptised in the Holy Spirit' with the power to be God's servants. Wrong, but not what my friend is advocating.

 

[Tom Hardy]

Hello Ed,

This would be my own approach:

First, about the tongues business—without getting into cessation at all—I’d quote him 1 Cor 12:30, “Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?”, where Paul rhetorically indicates that all did not speak in tongues, even back in his day.

About inerrancy, ultimately it is decided by Scripture, which may be by inference (as are other crucial doctrines, such as the Trinity), or direct statements. It also depends on the ability to make that statement concerning the Bible you use.

When Jesus says in Matt 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, and Peter says in 2 Pet 1:3, “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” [emphases added], it is clear that if we must live by every word of God, and He has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, He has provided this for us.

If someone wants to argue about what Jesus meant by “every word”, I would refer them to what the LORD told Jeremiah in Jer 26:2,

“Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word”.​

Even the smallest words are to be retained, and none to be added, as is clear: Rev 22:18, 19; Deut 4:2; Prov 30:6; Deut 12:32.

That it is part of our heritage—His covenant with us—as the LORD’s people to have His book intact, Isaiah says this,

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD,
from henceforth and for ever (Isa 59:21).​

Although it will not impress your friend, but for your own assurance, our WCF, at 1:8, affirms this:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. [emphasis added]​

What is required is an understanding of how we got the Reformation’s Textus Receptus, and what its transmission history is. Yes, this is a much disputed matter in these days of the church’s doctrinal decline, but it is worth pursuing, if only for your own benefit—and those you communicate with.

All these things are helpful, but at this point because I am not sure anything I say after this would be helpful. He knows that I am Reformed in my faith and believes "Calvinism" is heretical. In fact, he believe that the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Church is a heretical teaching that unfortunately has effected most denominations today. It does not matter to him what any denomination believes, because sola-scriptura frees him from being beholden to any statement of faith, or confession. I tried to explain to him that he is mistaken about what sola-scriptura means, explaining that what he is espousing is more "solo-scriptura" than sola-scriptura. However, he didn't respond to this, he just more of the same nonsense.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I am delighted that to see that Tom is now a member. I really appreciate the answers you have given so far. Thanks so much!

 

[Branson]

Dear Friends,

I received the following email from a www.reformed.org visitor and am hoping you will give me a little guidance on how best to help this brother.
Thanks in advance.

-----------------------------
​

Hi,

I am hoping you can help me with a matter concerning someone I care about.

As a person who has been a Christian over 36 years now. I don’t remember a time during all that time I did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. That is saying a lot seeing I was saved in the Salvation Army and a few years later, I became a Pentecostal. Then through God’s providence I was faced with the doctrines of Grace and eventually embraced them wholeheartedly. I now am involved in a Reformed Baptist Church.

Both the Salvation Army and the Pentecostal Church (P.A.O.C) affirm the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. In fact when I was in the Pentecostal Church I met my friend whom I am writing this about. He was in my wedding party over 34 years ago.

Recently, I was in a Facebook conversation with my friend and the subject of the Inerrancy of Scripture came up. Unfortunately, he said that this doctrine is not biblical. When I told him that this was a doctrine that among the few doctrines that unite Protestant Churches, including the P.A.O.C. can actually agree on. He said, he could care less, because it is clear that even the Gospels themselves have discrepancies, however he does not need an inerrant Bible, he needs an inerrant God, who speaks with authority in the Scriptures. I tried to show him that he was mistaken about the discrepancies, but to no avail.

He went onto say that he believes that anybody who insists on an inerrant Bible, is guilty of making an idol of Scripture. Also that to equate 2 Tim. 3:16 “Inspiration of God” (God breathed) with infallible and inerrant, is simply wrong.

The conversation kind of eroded from there and he told me the following quote. “Christians have His Spirit in them, not a doctrinal statement of agreement. Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."-- Since you have abandoned speaking in tongues it is questionable if you are truly saved.” (Please note, this is something that the P.A.O.C. would disagree with.)

What he said hurt a bit, but I am very concerned about him.

Based on what I have said above, how would you have handled the subject had someone you cared about said all this to you?

I read this tonight in a Ligon Duncan sermon on Romans 3: "One of our congregation members was at a meeting just about a week ago where he was accused of being a bibliolater, a Bible worshiper. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met a bibliolater. I’ve never met somebody who had too high of a view of God’s word, because God’s word belongs to God; and just as we show honor and respect to Him, we show honor and respect to His word. And so the idea of a Christian being accused of being a bibliolater really ought to come across to you as a compliment. Well, thank you, ought to be your response. I’ve always aspired to being a bibliolater. I’ve always wanted to be one. I never think I’ve quite made it, but I’ve always wanted to be one. You see Paul speaks of these Scriptures, some of them were written a thousand years before the time that he was speaking, some of them were written six hundred years before the time he was speaking and writing, and yet he talks about them saying and speaking to the people of his own day, just like they say and speak to us today. God’s word is living and if anyone ever, ever accuses you of thinking too highly of God’s word, you can be assured of two things. One, you're on the right track. And two, they're not."

 

[Dachaser]

All these things are helpful, but at this point because I am not sure anything I say after this would be helpful. He knows that I am Reformed in my faith and believes "Calvinism" is heretical. In fact, he believe that the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Church is a heretical teaching that unfortunately has effected most denominations today. It does not matter to him what any denomination believes, because sola-scriptura frees him from being beholden to any statement of faith, or confession. I tried to explain to him that he is mistaken about what sola-scriptura means, explaining that what he is espousing is more "solo-scriptura" than sola-scriptura. However, he didn't respond to this, he just more of the same nonsense.

Man thing to place emphasis on is wjat the Bible states concerning itself being the revelation of God, and how Jesus viewed them as being of/from God. Does he accept Jesus as God Incarnate? If yes, how can he deny what Jesus stated concerning them?

 

[Dachaser]

I am the person that sent the e-mail to Ed. I thank you for your response and I want to assure you that I have researched the issue of the inerrancy of Scripture and I actually gave my friend a link to an RC Sproul article on what the inerrancy of scripture means and what it does not mean. The short answer to that is ""The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact" (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 90). Based on his responses to me, I actually don't think he paid much attention to it. However, when he found out that I am Reformed in my theology, he sure jumped on it. I am guessing that Face Book conversation had about 45 entries. As you probably noticed from what Ed revealed, that he doubts that I am saved because I stopped speaking in tongues. I can tell you, he didn't learn that from the Pentecostal Church we met at. They do not equate tongues with salvation, they equate it to evidence that we have been "baptised in the Holy Spirit' with the power to be God's servants. Wrong, but not what my friend is advocating.

So does he hold than more with Charasmatic view regarding ongoing revelations from the Lord for today, in modern day Apostles/Prophets?

 

[Tom Hardy]

I read this tonight in a Ligon Duncan sermon on Romans 3: "One of our congregation members was at a meeting just about a week ago where he was accused of being a bibliolater, a Bible worshiper. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met a bibliolater. I’ve never met somebody who had too high of a view of God’s word, because God’s word belongs to God; and just as we show honor and respect to Him, we show honor and respect to His word. And so the idea of a Christian being accused of being a bibliolater really ought to come across to you as a compliment. Well, thank you, ought to be your response. I’ve always aspired to being a bibliolater. I’ve always wanted to be one. I never think I’ve quite made it, but I’ve always wanted to be one. You see Paul speaks of these Scriptures, some of them were written a thousand years before the time that he was speaking, some of them were written six hundred years before the time he was speaking and writing, and yet he talks about them saying and speaking to the people of his own day, just like they say and speak to us today. God’s word is living and if anyone ever, ever accuses you of thinking too highly of God’s word, you can be assured of two things. One, you're on the right track. And two, they're not."

Branson, the person actually believes he has a higher view of God's Word than I do. He believes that the Bible retains all the authority of God, yet because of the humans authors it has errors, yet retains all the authority because it is inspired (God breathed) by God.
In his way of thinking this makes the authority of Scripture a lot more incredible than if it was infallible and inerrant. As I said before, he also thinks that to believe that to equate "Inspiration" with infallible and inerrant is idol making. All this kind of makes me wonder where he goes to Church and if they actually agree with him? To me this stuff should not be rocket science. Christians call the Bible "God's Word". If it is God's Word (and it is) then since God can not err then God's Word (as originally given) is inerrant. Sound simple enough that a child could understand it. If he was consistent, he would not call the Bible, "God's Word".

 

[Dachaser]

Branson, the person actually believes he has a higher view of God's Word than I do. He believes that the Bible retains all the authority of God, yet because of the humans authors it has errors, yet retains all the authority because it is inspired (God breathed) by God.
In his way of thinking this makes the authority of Scripture a lot more incredible than if it was infallible and inerrant. As I said before, he also thinks that to believe that to equate "Inspiration" with infallible and inerrant is idol making. All this kind of makes me wonder where he goes to Church and if they actually agree with him? To me this stuff should not be rocket science. Christians call the Bible "God's Word". If it is God's Word (and it is) then since God can not err then God's Word (as originally given) is inerrant. Sound simple enough that a child could understand it. If he was consistent, he would not call the Bible, "God's Word".

Seems that he has bought into the limited inerrancy crowd. which allows for there to be mistakes in the Bible as regarding things, but still inspired in regards to the spiritual things in it.