Biblical inerrancy in statements of faith

[buggy]

If a statement of faith only says the Bible is the inspired word of God (without statements like "without error" etc.), is that sufficient enough to support the doctrine on the Scriptures? Or, are there big implications in the lack of these terms thereof?

 

[JennyG]

I'm sure there can be big (and bad) implications. "Inspired word of God" in practice can mean almost anything - or almost nothing

 

[Semper Fidelis]

On it's face there's nothing wrong with the statement. Frankly, admitting that the Scriptures are inspired ought to lead men to conclusions of infallibility without crazy modernist baggage to have to qualify it further but we live in times where men use words in different ways than they used to do so.

Words are symbols pointing to ideas. How those words are used in sentences and paragraphs is where you'll see if they have orthodox beliefs or have equivocated.

 

[jwithnell]

Interestingly, in the millennium between the writing of the early creeds and the writing of the Westminster Standards, we went from saying almost nothing about the authority of God's word to placing a discussion about revelation at the very start of the confession. In the earlier creeds, I think it was assumed (the Nicene Creed adds "according to the Scriptures" as a final verification of Jesus' resurrection) that the scriptures were without error and authoritative in all areas of life. Given the even greater shift in theology over the last century or so, I'd think a Christian organization would want to make a careful statement about what it understands the scriptures to be.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I used to think the word "inspired" was sufficient. But then there are those that would limit the word to mean "only in matters of faith and doctrine", and relegate the rest of Scripture to being open to claims of containing genuine contradictions and error. Of course, the matter of determining what the "rest of Scripture" implies was to be left to those that would claim to properly interpret these other portions of Scripture.

For me "inspired" should lead to the presupposition that God is not the author of confusion, nor can He lie, thus verbal and plenary inspiration should be the starting point assumed in all matters of exegesis. When we encounter what we think as error or contradiction, excluding obvious transcription errors, we should assume we do not yet fully understand, not that God has erred.

AMR

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Not to mention the Barthian deconstruction, where "inspired" means that I can hear God's voice speaking to me as I read it, at times, and in different ways, in various passages. Some preachers say, "Listen for God's word..." rather than, "Hear the word of the Lord."