# Trinitarian basis for Biblical inerrancy



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 31, 2014)

There are a few vocal philosophers (influenced by Reformed Theology) in my country who deny Biblical inerrancy.

I have been wondering if a helpful framework for defending Biblical inerrancy would be a Trinitarian framework. Here is my attempt.

All Scripture is breathed out by God [ 2 Tim 3:16 ESV]. Therefore because God cannot err, neither can scripture.
Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate [John 1:1; 1 John 1:1 ff ]. Because the Lord Jesus cannot err, neither can scripture.
The Holy Spirit is the author of the scriptures and also testifies to them [2 Pet 1: 21; Calvin's Institutes 1:1X]. The Spirit cannot err, therefore neither can scripture.

Thoughts?


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 9, 2014)

I am no philosopher, however I find your argues very intriguing. I will sit back and watch. Perhaps you should mention Jesus, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, to emphasize the Trinitarian Godhead; proof they are God therefore they can't err.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 10, 2014)

Thanks Trent. Points noted.

Anyone else want to critique it?


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Feb 10, 2014)

The quoting of Calvin's Institutes as a proof text may do more harm than good.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 10, 2014)

Reverend Martyn Lloyd-Jones points out that many people study the Scriptures as if they were Shakespeare. Using Scripture to prove anything is useless because they don't believe any of it ;

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 10, 2014)

ProtestantBankie said:


> The quoting of Calvin's Institutes as a proof text may do more harm than good.



Why?


----------



## Claudiu (Feb 10, 2014)

I think someone like Barth would question why scripture must be inerrant? It could be the case that scripture is primarily about revealing Christ, but that wouldn't necessitate it being inerrant. It is composed of certain individuals providing us insight into Christ. In this case, they wouldn't buy the Trinity/scripture argument. They would agree that scripture and the Trinity are related (scripture reveals the plan of the Father, manifested in Christ, made possible by the illumination of the Holy Spirit). 

My argument against this line of thinking is the skepticism that can come about and ruin the faith. If the scriptures are not inerrant, then how can we be sure that what they say is correct. That is, without inerrancy we do not have assurance. One may pose questions like "what if the Apostles got it wrong?" Moreover, the Bible even mentions that the prophets and authors of the Bible did not speak of their own accord, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak as they did. In that case, holy writ must be inspired, and therefore inerrant. Denying inerrancy seems to put one in a bind. 

Now flushing out the Trinitarian argument for the inerrancy of scripture can be done, but it has to be robust. This is where I think Reformed theology has been a tremendous help. Reading Reformed theologians on the trinitarian nature of supernatural revelation has been very helpful for me.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2014)

If we can't even trust the Bible on what it says about itself, its own nature, being without error and inspired by a God who cannot lie, why should we listen to it on anything else?

That's the problem for those Christians or "Christians" who reject the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 10, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> My argument against this line of thinking is the skepticism that can come about and ruin the faith. If the scriptures are not inerrant, then how can we be sure that what they say is correct. That is, without inerrancy we do not have assurance. One may pose questions like "what if the Apostles got it wrong?" Moreover, the Bible even mentions that the prophets and authors of the Bible did not speak of their own accord, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak as they did. In that case, holy writ must be inspired, and therefore inerrant. Denying inerrancy seems to put one in a bind.



Agreed. It seems to me if one denies inerrancy, one must ask "To what *extent* do the scriptures err"? This creates a hopeless slippery slope - the slide must need a firm foundation to stop it. 



Claudiu said:


> Now flushing out the Trinitarian argument for the inerrancy of scripture can be done, but it has to be robust. This is where I think Reformed theology has been a tremendous help. Reading Reformed theologians on the trinitarian nature of supernatural revelation has been very helpful for me.



Agreed. Van Tils argument on the relationship of the Trinity and the One and Many problem, Covenant theology based on the foundation of the Trinity etc etc demonstrate again the importance of Trinitarian doctrine in ALL aspects of theology.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Feb 11, 2014)

I guess you could argue that the canon coming together from 40 different authors, 3 continents, 3 languages, 1200 year span with one beautifully cohesive message could have only been brought together from such diversity into unity (one and many) with a Trinitarian God. 

Maybe inter~Trinitarian love too somehow, who knows how, but somehow; love as a bond of unity in diversity; not sure. And definitely the inter~Trinitarian personalities, in choosing 40 personalities to speak through in inspiration.


----------

