Rejecting pagan rules of the game
Paul Littleton takes issue with two words the Bible never uses to describe itself: inerrant and infallible.
I believe we need a higher view of Scripture than what the term "inerrancy" provides. Granted some will be inclined to argue that there is no such thing as a higher view of Scripture than to say that it is inerrant. . . .Paul also takes issue with those who would force the Bible to answer post-Enlightenment, rationalistic questions foreign to Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the other NT authors.
One of my objections to those terms in regard to the Scriptures is that they are negative words as noted by the "in-" prefix. That means that, at the foundation, we are making a statement about what Scripture is not, namely they are not in error and they are not fallible. But surely we can speak more highly of the Scriptures than to hang our hats fundamentally and primarily on what they are not. In fact, while I have not done a thorough study on this (and perhaps should do so) I don't recall a single place in the Scriptures themselves where they are described by what they are not, but rather by what they are.
posted by Milton Stanley at 2:18 PM
8 Comments:
I'm just a stay at home don't debate the higher subjects kind of woman and don't really understand what this post is saying.
Are you saying the Bible isn't 100% true as written? It has to be, otherwise we could I take it to mean what we want and then it is of no value as a whole....I'm confused.
AA,
Let me encourage you to follow the link and read the whole post. I conclude by saying that one of the best things that we say about the Bible is that it is "totally true and trustworthy." I suggest that we need to continue to work out those positive statements about the Bible rather than base our argument on what the Bible is not.
I think I get it now, it's kind of like how women are defined through men because of Paul, even though Jesus never said anything even remotely close to what Paul said.
Annie: it looks like Paul already answered your question. Thanks for your question and comments.
I remember sitting in a Music History class with Dr. Skapski at the helm... he played a portion of some classical music and then asked one of the student, Jim Lehrman, to name the song and composer... after a moment, the student said, "Well, it's NOT Mozart..."
Mr. Skapski turned off the record player (yeah, ancient, I know), looked at the student and said, "Mr. Lehrman, I did not ask you to tell us what this was NOT, but, rather, what is IS..."
Let's focus on what the Bible IS, rather than on what it is NOT.
Brother McGowan you raise such a good point. Today people are as a whole focusing too much, on what the Bible isn't rather than what it is.
Inerrant – 1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors.
Infallible - Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Good point, Dan.
Thanks for the comment, Rick, and I like the new picture of you--lest intimidating than the guy in the hard hat. Peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home