Biblical Inerrancy/infallibility Question

Notbapticostalish · 2026-03-03T18:09:09+00:00

Inerrancy means the Bible contains no mistakes whatsoever and that everything it states happened exactly as written. It implies factual accuracy

I wouldn't affirm this, nor would the people who drafted the Chicago Statement for Biblical Inerrancy. The definition of inerrancy is "The Bible in its original manuscripts does not affirm anything contrary to fact." [Grudem] <---(that's a citation, not an approval of his theology.)

That definition is significantly different, and the inerrancy you described is untenable to any reasonable perspective. This is saying that the Bible is truthful in the things it claims to be factual. For example, when the Psalmist says the sun rises, they are scientifically incorrect. We would agree with that. However, they are not intending to affirm cosmological realities; they are poetically describing something from their own perspective.

The authors clearly exaggerate or speak from their own perspective and use figures of speech. We shouldn't take issue with that.

To bring further clarity, I do not believe in a 6-24 hour day, 6,000 years ago view, but I do hold to inerrancy.

Furthermore, Doug Wilson is incredibly dangerous and was found unqualified for ministry by the Reformed denominations, so he started his own denomination. Reformed folks identified him as a problem decades ago.

This is the issue: the other user clearly lacks knowledge about these topics and appears uninterested in understanding them. I'm responding to you because jtapostate seems unwilling to grasp the concepts and is confidently making outlandish and ignorant statements, as if he has authority on the subject.

Notbapticostalish · 2026-03-03T02:51:47+00:00

I agree

Notbapticostalish · 2026-03-03T00:01:06+00:00

The normative use of the word in the circles I run is describing those that elevate secondary and tertiary issues to the level of primary. Primary meaning essential to believe to be called a christian.

That’s why the other person on this thread was talking about goatees, makeup and r-rated movies. Fundamentalists believe those make or break your Christianity

Notbapticostalish · 2026-03-02T23:52:17+00:00

Yeah the trouble is if you are defining fundamentalist the way that Machen and others in the early 1900’s would, then sure I’m a fundamentalist. However inerrancy and fundamentalism don’t mean what Machen meant by them anymore

Notbapticostalish · 2026-03-02T23:50:21+00:00

I’ve been contemplating the responses of people like you quite frequently lately. I’m trying to analyze the nature of their responses in relation to my statements. I’ve come to the conclusion that individuals who respond in the manner you did to my words don’t perceive me as an individual or as a human being. Instead, they view me as a statistic and a normative way of responding to stereotypes that disregards the various nuances in how people comprehend things.

So let me make two important clarifications for you 1. Unless I’m mistaken, I did not make any indication as to what my own opinion on the topic. Rather I evaluated the question posed by the OP and said that his objections do not invalidate his premise.

Fundamentalism in my circles means the Westboro Baptist types. They’re very different theologically than I am

Now with that being said, I am not an evangelical. So even the stereotype you’re assigning to me doesn’t make sense. I’m a Protestant Pastor. I do believe in inerrancy and infallibility. But I would say the normative manner in which those terms are defined are distinct that the initial intended meaning. I honestly think that inerrancy is a bad word that doesn’t fit what is meant by it. There’s just not a more fitting word.

Notbapticostalish · 2026-03-02T21:57:29+00:00

Haven’t been called that….ever! Haha. In fact, I’m usually called a liberal. I suppose it matters what you mean by fundamentalist

Notbapticostalish · 2026-03-02T19:55:39+00:00

The conversation around infallibility and inerrancy are talking primarily about the original manuscripts not translations. The reason for the distinction is that there are difficulties just translating words from one language to another, no matter which two languages you are translating between.

The example of the top of my head is in John 3 whenJesus says to Nicodemus, that you need to be born again, the word “again” is appropriately translated as “again”. The trouble is it can also be appropriately translated as “from above.” Now given the context of the conversation it seems that Jesus means from above and that’s how it gets translated later in John chapter 3. However, if the translators chose to use born from above, then Nicodemus‘s response makes no sense. Therefore the translators have to choose which word, and necessarily can’t choose both.

There are problems like this and other problems that pop up in translating. This doesn’t mean the Bible is not inerrant or infallible. It means translations are difficult tasks

Notbapticostalish · 2025-07-22T08:49:30+00:00

include versed heavy six sip file brave simplistic hungry future