Paul: inerrant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lifelong_sinner

Puritan Board Freshman
I may need some correction on the Bible. My belief is that every word, every chapter is without error or flaw. That whatever the Bible says is true. It is not to be questioned.
Having said that, i am noticing a trend from others (non-reformed) that talk about the only parts of the Bible that can be counted on, relied on, are the parts Jesus or the Father said.
Over the last couple of months, the idea of female pastors has been an issue. Those who believe its ok for females to be pastors have said Paul was wrong. When i bring up that all of the Bible is truth, what i get is either 1. Paul was talking to 1st century people. 2. Paul was just straight up wrong. And 3. That the only part of Paul’s writings that are truth is when the Bible says that Paul wrote a particular book. I have even had people tell me Peter is wrong as well.
Is my view of the Bible incorrect? And if not, how do i defend what Paul said since quoting scripture goes nowhere?
 
Sounds like you are arguing with liberals and heretics. Only thing that will correct them is the grace of God. You are correct in that all the Bible is the word of God. It is not just the parts they like or can agree to.
 
Ohhh if you only knew how heretical. Clearly there are people/christians that have a hostile view of reformed/calvinist theology. I honestly had no idea it was like this. I had to become calvinist to understand that.
 
I may need some correction on the Bible. My belief is that every word, every chapter is without error or flaw. That whatever the Bible says is true. It is not to be questioned.
Having said that, i am noticing a trend from others (non-reformed) that talk about the only parts of the Bible that can be counted on, relied on, are the parts Jesus or the Father said.
Over the last couple of months, the idea of female pastors has been an issue. Those who believe its ok for females to be pastors have said Paul was wrong. When i bring up that all of the Bible is truth, what i get is either 1. Paul was talking to 1st century people. 2. Paul was just straight up wrong. And 3. That the only part of Paul’s writings that are truth is when the Bible says that Paul wrote a particular book. I have even had people tell me Peter is wrong as well.
Is my view of the Bible incorrect? And if not, how do i defend what Paul said since quoting scripture goes nowhere?
If they do not submit to the authority of scripture then why do they submit to the teaching of Christ as found in scripture? Was not Christ, too, speaking to 1st century people whom, by the way, had a similar view of the role of women in society as Paul did? And having corrected many errors of his contemporaries, why did Jesus not address this issue? Furthermore the Father spoke to people centuries before the coming of Christ and lo and behold, they also held similar views of the place of women.

And ultimately what does the time in which something is said have to do with the fact it is truth or not? If in 20 years our culture shifted 'patriarchal' and banned women from places of authority and leadership in state, home and church would they just roll over and accept it? Hardly. Why not? Because in their heart of hearts they believe it be a matter of morality, not temporality.
 
Look no further than chapter 1 of the London Baptist Confession with supporting citations for a fully orbed defense of the totality and inerrancy of Scripture. One of the many benefits of being confessional is that others before us have already labored to have these answers for us at our disposal.
 
Its presuppositions. You are likely to get nowhere just quoting verses.
If they believe inerrancy, then the verses need to be exegeted. The whole redemptive hermeneutic I have found to be a slippery slope. Egalitarians in the same breath like to say the Bible talks of mutual submission for today while saying the same verses speak only of first century issues. Those are mutually exclusive.
If they don't believe in it then there is little use.
 
The two texts that that immediately come to my mind are the rich man addressing Abraham, asking that his 5 brothers be warned by someone from the dead. Abraham replies that they have Moses and the prophets, the rich man said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And Abraham responds Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Peter, referring to Paul's epistles,

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top