Thursday, May 17, 2012

inerrancy means freedom

JI Packer in Truth and Power:

Any degree of skepticism about the portrait of Christ, the promises of God, the principles of godliness, and the power of the Holy Spirit, as biblically presented, has the effect of enslaving us to our own alternative ideas about these things, and thus we miss something of the freedom, joy, and vitality that the real Christ bestows. God is very patient and merciful, and I do not suggest that those who fall short here thereby forfeit all knowledge of Christ, though I recognize that when one sits loose to Scripture this may indeed happen. But I do maintain most emphatically that one cannot doubt the Bible without far-reaching loss, both in fullness of truth and of fullness of life. If therefore we have at heart spiritual renewal for society, for churches and for our own lives, we shall make much of the entire trustworthiness–that is, the inerrancy–of Holy Scripture as the inspired and liberating Word of God.


Rick Frueh said...

Inerrancy may be true, however the obsession, focus, and doctrinal requirement is moot. Most missionaries have never relied upon that doctrine for their witness. There are no original documents, so not only must we assume our copies are overwhelmingly accurate, but we must assume they are inerrant?

A commenter on your link said,

“Well, if you (anyone) believes the Bible has mistakes, then you are the one who determines what truth is. Self is then elevated to God.” (He may be the blog administrator?)

That describes interpretation, as well as translation from Hebrew and Greek. If our interpretation and/or our translation is not also considered inerrant, than the supposition of original text inerrancy is, as I have said, moot. Is it not enough to believe that the Scriptures are used of the Holy Spirit primarily to present Christ and His offer of redemption by faith alone? In the end, there is an undeniable element of faith necessary for all of it.

Rick Ianniello said...

I didn't think I was being obsessive or had it as a focus. I do however find the 'doctrine' to be helpful, important, and most important, to be true. So I'm unclear why some feel a need to caution about abuse every time it is mentioned. It would be like dropping by someone else's blog and every time they mention the Church, Christ, whatever, remind them of the damage done in the "name of christ" ... I think that unfair, unwarranted, and unhelpful.

Rick Frueh said...

Again, fair enough.