Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 64:
During the 18th and 19th centuries and in the aftermath of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] critique of religion, various episodes of the Bible (for example the [[Genesis flood narrative|Noahide worldwide flood]],<ref>Plimer, Ian (1994), ''Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism'', Random House</ref> the [[Genesis creation narrative|creation in six days]], and the [[Adam and Eve|creation of women from a man's rib]]) began increasingly to be seen as legendary rather than as literally true. This led to further questioning of the veracity of biblical texts.
==
The [[Fuller Theological Seminary]] formally adopted inerrancy restricted to theological matters (what some authors now call "infallibility"). It
{{quote|Where inerrancy refers to what the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] is saying to the churches through the biblical writers, we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://fuller.edu/About/Mission-and-Values/What-We-Believe-and-Teach/|title=What We Believe and Teach|website=Fuller Theological Seminary|language=en|archive-url=https://perma.cc/7QDT-R7ZM|archive-date=21 October 2017|url-status=live|access-date=21 October 2017|df=dmy-all}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine ''[[Christianity Today]]'' and the book entitled ''The Battle for the Bible'' by Harold Lindsell. Lindsell asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and [[Christian fundamentalism|Conservative Christians]] rallied behind this idea.<ref>Lindsell, Harold. ''The Battle for the Bible. '' Zondervan, 1978. {{ISBN|978-0-310-27681-4}}</ref>
Line 78 ⟶ 80:
}}</ref>
[[Daniel B. Wallace]], Professor of New Testament at [[Dallas Theological Seminary]], divides the various evidences into two approaches: deductive and inductive approaches.<ref>[http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4200 My Take on Inerrancy], [http://www.bible.org/ bible.org] website</ref>
====
The first deductive justification is that the Bible says it is inspired by God (for instance "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"
Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W. J. Mcrea writes:
{{quote|The Bible then makes two basic claims: it asserts unequivocally that God cannot lie and that the Bible is the Word of God. It is primarily from a combination of these facts that the argument for inerrancy comes.<ref>McRea, WJ, ''A book to die for'', Clements publishing, 2002.</ref>
And [[Stanley Grenz]] has:
{{quote|Because God cannot lie and because scripture is inspired by God, the Bible must be wholly true. This syllogism may be valid for establishing inerrancy, but it cannot define the concept.<ref>Grenz, Stanley, ''Theology for the community of God'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000</ref>}}
Also, from Geisler:
<blockquote>Those who defend inerrancy are deductivists pure and simple. They begin with certain assumptions about God and the scriptures, namely, that God cannot lie and the scriptures are the Word of God. From these assumptions, inerrantists deduce that the Bible is without error.<ref name="Geisler1980">{{cite book |first = Norman L. |last=Geisler |title=Inerrancy |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=e6IlzfPztMUC&pg=PA271 |year=1980 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=978-0-310-39281-1 |page=271 }}</ref></blockquote>▼
▲
A second reason offered is that [[Jesus]] and the apostles used the [[Old Testament]] in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in {{Bibleref2|Galatians|3:16}}, [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]] bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed" is singular rather than plural. This (as stated) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words.<ref name="Bible 1984">"Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of", by P. D. Feinberg, in ''[[Evangelical Dictionary of Theology]]'' (Baker, 1984, Ed. W. Elwell)</ref>▼
{{blockquote|Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds", as (referring) to many, but (rather) to one, "And to your seed", that is, Christ.{{Bibleref2c|Gal|3:16}}}}▼
▲A second reason offered is that [[Jesus]] and the apostles used the [[Old Testament]] in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in Galatians 3:16,<ref>{{
▲{{blockquote|Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds", as (referring) to many, but (rather) to one, "And to your seed", that is, Christ.
Similarly, Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled,<ref>{{
{{blockquote|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Although in these verses, Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the [[Old Testament]], the argument is considered by some to extend to the [[New Testament]] writings, because
====
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the [[Presbyterian]] theologian [[Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield]]:
<blockquote>In his ''Inspiration and Authority of the Bible'',<ref name="Warfield 48">{{cite book|last1=Warfield|first1=Benjamin|author-link=Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield|editor1-last=Craig|editor1-first=Samuel|others=with introduction by [[Cornelius Van Til]]|title=The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible|edition=1st|publisher=Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company|location=[[Phillipsburg, New Jersey|Phillipsburg]], [[New Jersey]]|isbn=978-0-87552-527-3|oclc=223791198|year=1948|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/inspirationautho0000warf}}</ref> Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today's evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E. J. Young's deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy|title=My Take on Inerrancy|author=Daniel B. Wallace|publisher=bible.com|access-date=17 November 2010| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101120210148/http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy| archive-date= 20 November 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref></blockquote>
=====Inspiration=====
In the [[Nicene Creed]] Christians confess their belief that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets".
People who believe in inerrancy think that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.<ref>
| |||