This week I’d like to look at Biblical inerrancy. This is a tough one for a lot of people, so I’ve looked at some different views to help people see where they fall on the spectrum.
Biblical inerrancy, according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy , is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching," and, "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”
Biblical inerrancy is the foundation for which some Christians believe the Bible is authoritative on all matters: scientific, historic, and spiritual.
The opposite of this view is a total lack of divine revelation—one that views the Bible as a human book, and is only “inspired” insofar as human authors were inspired to write it.
A more moderate view is that the Bible records revelations of God as well as the culture response to those revelations of God. Using the moderate view, Christians can say that even though there are contradictions between books in the Bible and events recorded that are not supported historically or scientifically, the Bible still reveals the revelation of God: that God is living and active, and has revealed himself in history through his acts and in the incarnation of Jesus.
Further reading:
Further reflection:
Hi . . . Nathan's father speaking here. First, I confess my frame of reference. I am LCMS--& not ashamed to admit it. My theological education is largely derived from theological institutions of the LCMS. As a called church worker of the LCMS, I have "affirmed" my acceptance of the canonical books of Holy Scripture, & their true exposition via the confession writings of the evangelical Lutheran Church. [This is not the same as the ELCA.] This would include the traditional Lutheran confessional framework about Biblical inspiration & inerrancy. Therefore, the views expressed in the aforementioned links do NOT necessarily reflect the views of the "author" of the LECKBAND CORNHUSKER BLOG. I keep trying to paddle my way through them, especially the www.crivoice link, which appears to have a Wesleyan, i.e., Methodist imprint, but I keep falling asleep. My "deep" response will have to wait.
My one CAVEAT: Those who argue the loudest & hardest in support of Biblical errancy(?) often seem to be those who have an agenda that goes beyond Biblical inerrancy. I'm just sayin'. I'll be in touch.
No comments:
Post a Comment