Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Since you cannot even copy my name correctly, I have to conclude that you
have done the same to give yourself a private version of the Westminster
Confession. My copy includes, in the first section:
2. [after naming the Bible books]All which are given by inspiration of
God, to be the rule of faith and life.

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
and reverent esteem [for] [of] the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness
of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style,
the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give
all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire
perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion
and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is
from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the
Word in our hearts.

6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own
glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we
acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary
for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;
and [that] there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God,
and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies,
which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be
observed.
 
The "infallible truth" is clearly connected to salvation. The Westminster
divines were indebted to Calvin, who corrected the scriptures on
astronomical matters. I understand that you cannot read it that way, for
you have the ERV. When explicit errors are pointed out, your version
imagines that they don't count. But the fact is that II Timothy 3:16 and
the Westminster Confession are a clear pair in stating what the truth of
scripture is.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:04:41 -0400 "David Heddle" <heddle@gmail.com>
writes:
D.F. Simmons,
You must be reading the WC quite differently. I see no place where it
limits the scope of biblical infallibility. Of course, scripture says
very little about science, and not a great deal about history or
archeology, but the WC does not teach that scripture, when it deviates
from soteriology, is no longer inerrant. Perhaps you could point out
where the divines stated that scripture is possibly unreliable when it
describes science or history.
And this has nothing to do with Henry Morris, I'm sure that everyone here
understands that inerrancy is not synonymous with literality. I am not a
YEC but I affirm the inerrancy of scripture.
You wrote that you accept the purpose of 2 Tim 3:16 without reservation.
Why? Why is the purpose spelled out in 2 Tim 3:16 one of the parts of
scripture whose reliability is beyond dispute? If scripture contains
error, why do you trust that particular snippet?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 10 19:19:31 2008