Skip to main content
God cannot lie, can he? Inspiration necessarily leads to a conceptualization or identification of doctrine of inerrancy. Truthfulness motivates the teaching of inspiration and thus inerrancy. Said differently, inspiration serves to maintain the truthfulness of Scripture. Truth, then, reflects the actuality of a reality. Scripture keeps what really is real. The events of Scripture witness to a true reality, though possibly from different perspectives. Scripture stands against error, that is, Scripture cannot, because of its truthfulness, be found with error. Error and Truth cannot exist in the mind of God with regards to reality. What is is in the mind of God. What is not is not presented as real in the mind of God and thus the Scriptures. So Scripture directly reflects truthful reality to the same degree that the reality of the image reflects itself in the mirror. Scripture stands in conjunction with the truthfulness of God. If God is errant, then Scripture can err. But if God cannot lie, and he cannot, then the Scriptures cannot lie. (It must be made presently known that this evangelical doctrine refers only to the original autographs of the canonical books. This leads one to question the practicality of such inerrancy.) Thus, compliance to the doctrine of inspiration and thus inerrancy bears upon ones approach/presupposition of the Scripture. One either approaches Scripture with the assumption of its truthfulness or one approaches Scripture with the assumption of its untruthfulness, even if it is only an assumption of the possibility of untruthfulness.

1. Can you view Genesis 1-11 as “creation myth” or from a “literary-critical” point of view and still be consistent with inerrancy?
2. Why do Christians deny inerrancy?
3. Origen (who probably had a higher view of Scripture than most evangelicals/fundamentalists) affirmed error in Scripture, but he affirmed that the errors were Inspired. Is this appropriate?

Popular posts from this blog

A response to my beloved mother: part 2

READ THIS POST FIRST MY MOTHER : "I'm a registered Conservative, but my vote counted since they endorsed McCain, so I guess it all depends on who the Libertarian's endorse, and even if it were someone difference, at least you would have had a part in voting for the "most" righteous candidate, and McCain was the one even though he's still not the Christian ideal! Remember, Bill Clinton was a "pro-choice" candidate as well as one who furthered the homosexual agenda, so it wasn't surprising to me that 9/11 happened after his term was up and it's not surprising that the economy is faltering so badly now, and it won't surprise me if Obama continues the downward spiral, even if it is into socialistic policies since that's how Europe has gone since they left off looking to God. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing since the majority have been anti-God for so long and their nations have paid for that for centuries (Dark...
Read more

I don't have all the answers, but I do have two cents.

My friend and fellow recovering ex-fundamentalist , I greet you joyously knowing the freedom you have found in leaving fundamentalism, however I am saddened by your departure as a whole from our Lord. I indeed understand the hardship which you have faced is cause for questioning God’s existence, faithfulness, and love to his creation. I would like to respond to you because I feel like I understand your socio-religious background. Let me first tell you my goal is not to re-convert you, but rather to give you a second thought from one who grew up in similar roots, whose posture of faith remains bent toward the gospel. I also grew up in ultra-conservative fundamentalism. If names like Peter Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Arlin Horton, etc, mean anything to you than you will understand. I graduated from PCC. OMG. I cannot believe it, but it’s true. What a crazy place. Fear, guilt, shame, legalism were the name of the game! As long as you “caught the spirit” all of life would be good and God would b...
Read more

The Intolerance of Presbyterian Creeds

The bind between American political allegiance and Protestant evangelical conservatism is a key which unlocks the door of much early American civil history especially during the antebellum era through the early 20th century. To be conservative and American meant that you must regard a Protestant form of Christianity, namely the revivalistic, moral gospel which declared a morally conservative view of the socio-political system as king. In fact, not to be Protestant and politically conservative was in line with defaming the stars and stripes. Hart describes a situation in the early 20th century where the state of Utah elected and appointed a Mormon Apostle, Reed Smoot, to the U.S. Senate. Smoot underwent serious investigation from a Senate appointed committee to deliberate upon the ability of a Mormon to function in the place of a Senator given his religious views. The conservative Protestant ethos of the age was skeptical of any other religious conviction in its ability to be “American”...
Read more