Tag Archive for 'Innerancy'

Calvin and Innerancy

Calvin was not naive about the apparent discrepancies in Scripture, nor did he expect biblical numbers to be exact. He accepted that Scripture uses phenomenological language and figures of speech. He often probed the difficult issues stemming from mistakes in translation and transmission. All that to say, he made the same sort of distinctions careful modern-day inerrantists make.

More to the point, however, he held to the same view of verbal, plenary inspiration. Calvin never rejected the truthfulness of any Scriptural affirmation. He believed the Bible to be the Word of God and without error. He argued on many occasions that to disagree with the Bible was to disagree with God himself. Conversely, those submissive to God, he maintained, would submit themselves to the Scriptures. They would never be led by the Spirit away from the Bible, for the Bible is the Spirit’s book.

–Kevin DeYoung, Did John Calvin Believe in Inerrancy?

I added emphasis to part of the quote that I’ve always believed but haven’t been able to articulate very well.

Also see:
What Inerrancy is Not
What Good is Inerrancy If We Don’t Have the Original Manuscripts?

Innerancy Posts and Responses

I have taken this from my blogging friend Derek Ashton’s ThEOparadox blog as a summation of the posts that my blogging friend Robert Jiminez posted in a series titled Has inerrancy outlived its usefulness? and Derek’s responses.

While I strongly affirm the innerancy of Scripture, I wanted to put up links to these posts from my two friends so that people who are unfamiliar with this concept and want a starting point can read them and make decisions for themselves. There are a lot of comments to read also.

I believe Robert’s first post is his strongest and Derek’s last is his.

The things that bother me the most about those who believe the Bible is errant is that “the Bible doesn’t speak about itself” and the apparent contradictions that are accusatory in a way, instead of apologetic towards Scripture. Derek addresses both of these in his last post.

Although Derek doesn’t know Robert, I can vouch for Robert’s sincerity and genuineness as a Christian and brother in Christ. I’m very thankful to have these two as my blogging friends. x

Inerrancy and Baggage

Love when others can express what I believe better than me.

Inerrancy and Baggage

Reformers and Innerancy

This simplifies things which I think is helpful and describes what I’ve always believed and still do after reading other points of view.

Zacharias Ursinus, principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, commenting on Q/A 21, describes “the man who truly believes,” the man with “justifying faith,” saying:

He believes that every thing which the Scriptures contain is true, and from God. (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 111 [pagination may not be the same]).

In a nutshell, this is what I mean by inerrancy. There is nothing false in Scripture, no errors in fact or doctrine, no mistakes in history or theology. Everything in the Scriptures is true, because it is all from God. This is what our confessions teach, the Reformers taught, and how the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have understood the Scriptures. It’s also how Jesus and the apostles approached the Old Testament.

–Kevin DeYoung, Inerrancy and the Reformers (blog post)

Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy?

Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy? is a great blog post by Kevin DeYoung who quotes Tim Keller and then writes some anecdotes that explain what I’ve always thought about the subject and still believe.

More On Innerancy

In an eclectic post I mentioned a series that my blogging friend Robert Jiminez is starting called Has inerrancy outlived it’s usefulness? Part One. I don’t agree with this but just wanted to pass it on to people and let them decide for themselves.

Derek Ashton just wrote a blog post commenting on the post by Robert. Derek can speak for me I agree with him so much so of course I agree with his assessment.

Both plan on writing future posts on this issue.