On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:43:15 -0500 (EST), Lloyd Eby wrote:
>SJ>for most of my 30+ years as a Christian I have
>>been a member (and held leadership positions at) Baptist churches that
>>would qualify as fundamentalist. Certainly their constitutions all had clauses
>>about the Bible being "inspired", "infallible" and "inerrant".
LE>Yes, but did they take those to be synonyms? They are not, you
>know. "Inspired" does not imply "infallible" or "inerrant."
No they did not take "inspired", "infallible" and "inerrant to be
synonyms. And agreed that "Inspired" does not imply "infallible" or
"inerrant." The Bible could be inspired but not infallible or
inerrent in minor, non-essential details. Or a computer-generated
phone book might be inerrant and infalible, but not inspired.
Indeed, it is not even clear if "inspired" is a major Biblical
concept. In 2 Tim 3:16 the word the KJV translates as "inspired"
(Gk. theopneustos) is actually better translated "God-breathed" as
in the NIV. When Paul says that Scripture is God-breathed he means
it is expired, rather than inspired. That is, the essential
characteristic of Scripture is that it is a product of God, not that
it has some quality called "inspiration" (although that might also be
true in some cases).
LE>sometimes. I do not believe that she was infallible, even during
>periods of inspiration. I do not believe that she was ever
>inerrant, at least in any hard or unqualified sense, except perhaps
>when she was doing mathematical or logical proofs, and got them
>right.
>
>I think that this example is germane to the discussion of how, if at all,
>these notions are accurately applied to the Bible.
Thanks for the example. The words "infallible", "inspiration" and
"inerrant" are not synonyms, but as regards the Bible there is a
relationship between them. If Scripture is "inspired" (ie. expired)
by God, then in some sense it must be "infallible" (ie. reliable)
and "inerrant" (ie. free from error), at least as far as it's
positive teaching on it's core doctrines of salvation are concerned.
It is obviously absurd for God to give us a Scripture that was
unreliable and full of errors regarding its primary goal, that of
making men "wise unto salvation" (2 Tim 3:15). The fact is that
*none* of the alleged errors in Scripture affect even *one* primary
doctrine of salvation.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------