# ---- Inerrancy----



## Scott Shahan (Oct 9, 2006)

I am getting really 

Where did this idea come from that says the Word of God is not Inerrant/Infalliable? 

Calvin writes in his institutes that it takes divine revelation to enable one to embrace the Word of God as being true, it is a work of the Holy Spirit. How true this is. If they don't believe that it is true (the Word) they cannot help it............only the Holy Spirit can show them that it is true and trustworthy. A few comments from class;

The word of God was written by men, sinful men, therefor it cannot be trusted completely.

We do not have the original manuscripts, all we have are copies. And there are probably some errors with those copies.

There is one only who is Inerrant and that one is God alone and not the Bible.

Luther was not a bible believing Christian

Luther was a Jesus believing Christian

Luther understood Jesus to be the word of God and not the Bible.

It doesn't matter "how" you read the bible. What matters is if your reading of the bible brings you to Jesus. Jesus is the goal. Hmmmmmmm..................... Doesn't sound right to me!! What about those Jehova wittnesses? They read the bible, and there reading of the bible brings them to Jesus.


What I am hearing here at Augustana is hard to believe. I had a personal conversation with Dr. Haar prior to his email response to me. His response was more sarcastic then empathetic. He doesn't believe that the Scripture is Inerrant. None or the professors that I emailed to have responded to my questions. I am taking a class on Luther from Chris this semester, and he made it very clear today in class (his actual words) "Luther did not believe that the bible was Inerrant". He has no evidence to back up this statement. He said that the Book of Concord was not Luther. here are a few statements that Chris made in class today;

Luther was not a bible believing christian

Luther was a Jesus believing Christian

Luther understood Jesus to be the word of God not the Bible.

The suggestion made in class today was those "Lutherans" today that believe in Inerrancy aren't really listening to Luther.

A few questions that I have........So did Philip Melenathon write about the early Lutheran view of Scripture? There has to be a place in History were the transition took place within the Lutheran church were it went from Believing in Inerrancy to not believing in it. Would it be the enlightenment era? What exactly is the historical significance of the Book of Concord? Does the book of Concord carry any weight within the Lutheran Church? Chris is teaching False doctrine to these young minds and he is decieving them. The historical context is significant, the Roman Catholics believe that the Scripture is Infallible, I tend to think that Luther adopted this belief. The Augustinian Monestary that luther was in believed in the Infallability of Scripture. Does Chris have any position to say that Luther "reformed" his view of the scripture? Prior to the Elca coming into being what was the lutheran churches view of Scripture, there should be a way of tracking were that lie came from. That lie has an origin somewhere in history, at least in the context of the Lutheran denomination. I am not able to sit under the teaching of this falsehood.

Any of you guys up on the whole issue of Inerrancy? I have been reading Hodge, Warfield, Grudem's systematic theology.
Scott





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## bookslover (Oct 10, 2006)

*Inerrancy*

Sounds like it's time to find a school that holds to the Bible as the infallible, inerrant written Word of God.

Since God is perfect (and, therefore, never lying and always speaking perfect truth), and omniscient (and, therefore, being completely infallible in His knowledge), and has spoken to us in propositional revelation, how could His written Word _not_ be inerrant and infallible.

The Bible, itself, tells us it is from God (1 Timothy 3:16). The perfections of His written Word are the foundation for that glorious central portion of Scripture, Psalm 119.

As I said - time to find a new school.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 10, 2006)

Where is Augustana at?


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 10, 2006)

guys,

I need to find a place in Luther's works where he say's the word Infallible. Or Melechthan saying something about Infallibility of Scripture. I have not been able to find Luther saying the word infallible. I know the word inerrant didn't exist at that time. 

thanks,
Scott


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 10, 2006)

> "I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, *which has never erred*." (LW. 32.11; Q. in Wood, 125)
> 
> and
> 
> ...



Good article - Martin Luther and Scripture

[Edited on 10-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 10, 2006)

This is GREAT!!

Can you tell me the sources of these quotes? The LW is Luthers Works? And the 32:11, is that chapter 32 line 11? or is the 32 the volume? What is Q. in wood 125?

Thanks for finding this. It is Very important to have Luther confirm the fact the the Scripture is Infalliable!! The Book of Concord which is around 1580 speaks directly to the issue and states that they believe the Scripture is infallible. The Professor said to me when I brought that up was, "The book of Concord is not Luther" My point was that it was the closest document to Luther's life. I believe the book of Concord came into existance just shortly after luther's death. My point was the people that helped bring the book of concord into existance were probably people that actually knew Luther personally. My Professor thought that it was insignificant what the Book of Concord said, since it is not Luther. 

Scott............... I like this guy----


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 10, 2006)

so where is augustana at?


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

What exactly is inerrant? Is it the words, or is it the words as symbols of meaning?


----------



## Peter (Oct 10, 2006)

Did B.B. Warfield invent inerrency?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> This is GREAT!!
> 
> Can you tell me the sources of these quotes? The LW is Luthers Works? And the 32:11, is that chapter 32 line 11? or is the 32 the volume? What is Q. in wood 125?
> ...



I have no idea - just doing some Google searches -


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 10, 2006)

Q. in Wood = Quoted in Wood???

[Edited on 10-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2006)

most likely VOLUME 32, PAGE 11.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2006)

> Luther was not a bible believing christian
> 
> Luther was a Jesus believing Christian
> 
> Luther understood Jesus to be the word of God not the Bible.



Deny the assertions. This is good ole fashioned neo-orthodoxy. Critique it from that line of thought.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> so where is augustana at?




http://www.augie.edu/


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> What exactly is inerrant? Is it the words, or is it the words as symbols of meaning?




This was helpful to me;

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



It is good so far as it goes. But it still seems to fall short of the old infallibility doctrine. What good is it to affirm the words are inspired and infallible in the originals? Very few Christians have access to those, and no Christians have access to inspired and infallible grammars and lexicons.

I fear the modern view makes our faith to rest on letters and syllables rather than the doctrine of God's holy word.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 10, 2006)

Here is something from Luther from http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther03.html



> I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that *none of these writers has erred*. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason. (WA, 2. 618. Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium ... Martini Lutheri defensio 11519).



There's also a good audio file here that is entitled "The Reformers and the Bible Version Question." If i'm not mistaken he talks about Luther, but you do have to listen to alot of other stuff first (i think it would be worth your listening to)...
http://www.biblecentre.net/solascript/audio/The Reformers and the Bible Version Question.mp3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2006)

Norman Geisler edited a book on Inerrancy. Part of the book debunks historical charges: 1) Princeton invented inerrancy; 2) Calvin as a good proto-barthian wouldn't have believed it, 3) Westminster didn't hold to inerrancy, yada yada yada.

I don't know if they deal with Luther on inerrancy. They do deal, I know, with the arguments "We believe in Jesus, not the bible."

Speaking of that, how do you *know* Jesus? If from the Bible, then your knowledge is compromised--given your premises. If not from the Bible, you are irrrational and mystical; at this point anything is fair-game.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> ...



Ha - would help if I looked at the Biblography of the ARTICLE - 

Wood, A. Skevington. Captive to the Word: Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture.
Britain: Paternoster Press; 1969)


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 11, 2006)

Found this, too: Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ



> If a different way to heaven existed, no doubt God would have recorded it, but there is no other way. Therefore let us cling to these words, firmly place and rest our hearts upon them, close our eves and say: Although I had the merit of all saints, the holiness and purity of all virgins, and the piety of St. Peter himself, I would still consider my attainment nothing. Rather I must have a different foundation to build on, namely, these words: God has given His Son so that whosoever believes in Him whom the Father's love has sent shall be saved. And you must confidently insist that you will be preserved; and you must boldly take your stand on His words, which no devil, hell, or death can suppress. Therefore no matter what happens, you should say: There is God's Word. This is my rock and anchor. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go. The Word must stand, for God cannot lie; and heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant letter or tittle of His Word remains unfulfilled.7


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 11, 2006)

I have started a Big Fight with this religion department on this issue!!

The quotes by Luther were sent to these professors, and here is there response to me.


Scott:

All these quotes are accurate but out of context. When Luther talked 
about scripture being without error he meant that in its central 
announcment that "All human beings are justified by faith through grace", the 
scripture could not be wrong. He was not saying that every sentence 
was inerrant or infallible. 

Don't make the scripture into God. We worship God and not the Bible. 
The only one who is without error is God.

Chris Croghan is our Luther scholar. He can help you go deeper into 
this issue.

Keep mulling,

and also this one;


Luther’s inerrancy has nothing to do with plenary inspiration, nothing to do with any assertion that the Bible is correct in all matters of history and science, nothing to do with usual evangelical discussions of inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. 

It relates, as does all of Luther’s theology, directly to matters of salvation. For Christians the Bible points to the goodness of God enacted in Jesus. In this, for Christians, the Bible is inerrant. This is Luther’s position. 

To all other questions of inerrancy , etc., Luther gives dismissive answers, and wonders why people waste their time speculating on matters of secondary importance. All that mattered to Luther was the powerful grace of God. He could not imagine why anyone would spend time speculating about anything else, and saw it as a dangerous distraction. 

In the face of the sheer goodness of God Luther was humbled and grateful. That is the heart of his theology. 

It is a good heart.

swanson


What is amazing is that we can read the same quote by Luther and come up with two different conclusions as to what he meant by what he wrote. We both can not be correct. Someone is wrong. This denomination will not accept the fact that Luther believed and taught that the Scripture was Infallible. What they have done or said basically about me is that I put the bible as being an equal authority to God Himself, or like they said, Scott it apears that you are worshipping the bible because you say the bible is inerrant, and only God is inerrant. So that implies that I am into idol worship.

Scott


----------



## BertMulder (Oct 11, 2006)

God’s Hammer (13): Unbreakable Scripture (Part 4)

John 10:35 teaches us the origin of the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. This doctrine did not begin in the last 100-150 years with the Princeton theologians, such as Charles Hodge or B. B. Warfield. Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican theologians have been teaching it for centuries. How could you square the Westminster Confession’s (1647) statement about the "entire perfection" of Scripture (1.5) with errors in the Bible? The Belgic Confession (1561) does not allow for mistakes in the Word either (4, 5, 7). Quotes too could easily be produced from Luther, Augustine (354-430) and many, many others for the inerrancy of Scripture. This is simply the doctrine of the prophets and the apostles. But our text teaches that Christ Himself taught this: "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). We even know the time and place of Christ’s proclamation: one winter at the feast of dedication in Jerusalem (22).

Thus the doctrine of inerrancy does not rest merely on inferences such as the following. The Bible is God’s Word; God is wholly true; therefore His Word is wholly true and free of error. The Bible is God breathed; God’s breath is perfect; therefore the Bible is perfect and contains no errors. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes; therefore there are no mistakes in the Bible. Inerrancy is taught by Christ’s direct statement: "the scripture cannot be broken."

Inerrancy then is not merely some philosophical construct ("foundationalism"), as some supposedly evangelical scholars (e.g., Stanley Grenz) say. It is not a philosophical but a theological doctrine, taught by the Son of God: "the scripture cannot be broken." 

This means that the doctrine of inerrancy rests upon the exact same basis as all other biblical doctrines, such as blood atonement and sovereign grace. The basis for all doctrines is the teaching of Scripture, and the Bible says, "the scripture cannot be broken."

The doctrine of inerrancy is foundational to all other Christian doctrines. How do you prove that Jesus is God? You quote the Bible. But if the Bible is not entirely trustworthy, how do you know that what you quoted is not an error? And if the Bible’s teaching of inerrancy (John 10:35) is false, why trust its teaching on heaven and hell?

Thus those who reject biblical inerrancy are guilty of heresy. Those who cannot say "the scripture cannot be broken" contradict the testimony of the church, the creeds and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Moreover at this point the rejectors of inerrancy are less orthodox than the Pharisees and Jews of Jesus’ day who received this doctrine! Thus to oppose inerrancy is to reject the clear testimony of Scripture, to walk contrary to the Spirit and to call Christ a liar. Rev. Angus Stewart


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 11, 2006)

Has the Catholic Church ever changed their view of Scripture? If not here is what Luther believed about Scripture when he was a Roman Catholic;

Roman Catholic Catechism;


II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures."74

I do not think that Luther changed his "view" of Scripture. Did he reform his view of the Scriptures? I don't think that it was brought up ever.. I don't think that I read about him arguing it in the 95 theses.

And likewise the Book of Concord (1580) should reflect Luther's views since it is the nearest official Lutheran document closes to his life time.

They do not give any evidence whatsoever to show that he changed his view of Scripture.


Are there any better quotes by Luther to put the nail in the coffin to end this argument? Or will they just continue to read him the way they want to read him and see him?

Scott


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 11, 2006)

WOW! 

Augustine;


CHAP. 36.--THAT INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE WHICH BUILDS US UP IN LOVE IS NOT PERNICIOUSLY DECEPTIVE NOR MENDACIOUS, EVEN THOUGH IT BE FAULTY. THE INTERPRETER, HOWEVER, SHOULD BE CORRECTED. 

40. Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception. For there is involved in deception the intention to say what is false; and we find plenty of people who intend to deceive, but nobody who wishes to be deceived. Since, then, the man who knows practises deceit, and the ignorant man is practised upon, it is quite clear that in any particular case the man who is deceived is a better man than he who deceives, seeing that it is better to suffer than to commit injustice. Now every man who lies commits an injustice; and if any man thinks that a lie is ever useful, he must think that injustice is sometimes useful. For no liar keeps faith in the matter about which he lies. He wishes, of course, that the man to whom he lies should place confidence in him; and yet he betrays his confidence by lying to him. Now every man who breaks faith is unjust. Either, then, injustice is sometimes useful (which is impossible), or a lie is never useful. 

41. Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I was going to say, if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads. He is to be corrected, however, and to be shown how much better it is not to quit the straight road, lest, if he get into a habit of going astray, he may sometimes take cross roads, or even go in the wrong direction altogether. 

CHAP. 37.--DANGERS OF MISTAKEN INTERPRETATION. 

For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself. And if he should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy him. "For we walk by faith, not by sight."(1) Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily also fall from love; for he cannot love what he does not believe to exist. But if he both believes and loves, then through good works, and through diligent attention to the precepts of morality, he comes to hope also that he shall attain the object of his love. And so these are the three things to which all knowledge and all prophecy are subservient: faith, hope, love.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 11, 2006)

LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK - OF GOD'S WORD



> Infinite potentates have raged against this book, and sought to destroy and uproot it - king Alexander the Great, the princes of Egypt and of Babylon, the monarchs of Persia, of Greece, and of Rome, the emperors Julius and Augustus - but they nothing prevailed; they are all gone and vanished, while the book remains, and will remain for ever and ever, perfect and entire, as it was declared at first.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



[Edited on 10-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## MW (Oct 11, 2006)

I am still left asking, what is inerrant? the words, or the words as symbols of meaning? Is it only the word "hilasterion" in Greek, or is it also the word "propitiation" in English?


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I am still left asking, what is inerrant? the words, or the words as symbols of meaning? Is it only the word "hilasterion" in Greek, or is it also the word "propitiation" in English?





A word is a vocable sign pointing to an objective thought-content. "Table" points to the concept of a real table. "Hilasterion" and "propitiation" are near equivalents in different languages, both of which point to the social reality of one person appeasing the anger of another. Verbal inerrancy means that the signs, together forming statements, point to what is truly there. When scripture says that Christ was our hilasterion/propitiation, it means that God was really angry with us because of our sin and Christ really appeased that anger at the cross. Truth and inerrancy are two sides of a coin. Scripture affirms what is true, what is actual, what is real, what exists; it does not assert error, what is false, what does not exist.

This is also helpful

http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/booklets/BTWB.pdf

[Edited on 06-07-2006 by Scott Shahan]


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 12, 2006)

Is this TRUE??? 

God is always concealed and revealed. Christians would say God is 
revealed through the Word, Jesus Christ. Fro Christians Jesus is the word 
of God. The words of the Bible were written by humans and inspired by 
God,.. When those words point a person to the Word then those words are 
holy. When the words of the Bible point a person away from the Word 
then the words are not holy. The human words of a book can never contain 
the Word. Those words can only point us in the right direction

Jews refer to the Hebrew Bible as the Tanach and not teh Old Testament. 
Orthodox Jews believe that the words of scripture are intended to teach 
you how to live but that scripture has gaps which are filled up in the 
Talmud and the Midrash. There is no doctrine of inerrancy among Jews.

M. Haar

I have been going around and around with this professor. I am getting dizzy!!!! My head is spinning. 

Scott


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> A word is a vocable sign pointing to an objective thought-content. "Table" points to the concept of a real table. "Hilasterion" and "propitiation" are near equivalents in different languages, both of which point to the social reality of one person appeasing the anger of another. Verbal inerrancy means that the signs, together forming statements, point to what is truly there. When scripture says that Christ was our hilasterion/propitiation, it means that God was really angry with us because of our sin and Christ really appeased that anger at the cross. Truth and inerrancy are two sides of a coin. Scripture affirms what is true, what is actual, what is real, what exists; it does not assert error, what is false, what does not exist.



Well said, Scott. That is the old infallibility doctrine. It is not merely the words, but the words conveying the message which is infallible. This means our faith is not in the mere letters of Scripture, but in the letters as they spell out the revelation of God.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> Is this TRUE???
> 
> God is always concealed and revealed. Christians would say God is
> ...



do these statements sound right? I thought that the Jews during Jesus' time thought that the Old Testament was infallible?

scott


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 12, 2006)

The Apostle Paul seems to think that the Old Testament was infalliable;

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


Scott


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 12, 2006)

[Edited on 06-07-2006 by Scott Shahan]


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 12, 2006)

Here is an interesting thought. I challenged their doctrinal position, and this is a remark that was said,

"If you need to demonstrate that scripture is inerrant then you are claiming the authority. If God is in charge of this text and how it functions then quit pretending you need to go to bat for God. The Word of God is the Word of God. It doesn't need you or I to defend it".

Scott

[Edited on 06-07-2006 by Scott Shahan]


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2006)

And are they doing God a service by attacking His word?


----------

