>Message text written by Brian D Harper:
>
>>BTW, is it considered an errrancy if you
>misppell inerrent?<
>
>Yes, which is precisely why we need a doctrine of inerrancy!
>
The doctrine of inerrancy includes spelling errors????
Weren't the Pharisees lawyers $-).
>That's logic, pal.
>
;-)
><<BTW, if you try to find the word inerrant in the Bible you'll
>also be out of luck, in addition to being suspicious and
>heretical>>
>
>Well, try to find the word "Trinity." You won't find the word, but you'll
>find the doctrine.
>
>Inerrancy is like that, and is tied up with "inspiration," which you WILL
>find. As one commentator puts it:
>
Why not call it the doctrine of inspiration? Inerrancy would
then be a possible interpretation of the scriptural concept,
which is inspiration.
><<Thus, inspired Scripture is written revelation, just as the prophets'
>sermons were spoken revelation. The biblical record of God's
>self-disclosure in redemptive history is not merely human testimony to
>revelation, but is itself revelation. The inspiring of Scripture was an
>integral part in the revelatory process, for in Scripture God gave the
>church his saving work in history, and his own authoritative interpretation
>of its place in his eternal plan. 'Thus saith the Lord' could be prefixed
>to each book of Scripture with no less propriety than it is (359 times) to
>individual prophetic utterances which Scripture contains. Inspiration,
>therefore, guarantees the truth of all that the Bible asserts, just as the
>inspiration of the prophets guaranteed the truth of their representation of
>the mind of God. ('Truth' here denotes correspondence between the words of
>man and the thoughts of God, whether in the realm of fact or of meaning.)
>As truth from God, man's Creator and rightful King, biblical instruction,
>like prophetic oracles, carries divine authority.
>
This is a wonderful doctrinal statement with which I agree 100%.
The Baptist Faith and Message puts forth a similar doctrine.
It concludes with the following statement that I really love:
"The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is
Jesus Christ."
But what we are discussing here is a doctrine of inspiration
not inerrancy.
But my main concern is not really what name we give to doctrines
but rather what the doctrines actually are and how they are
put into practice. My comments here relate obviously to my
own experiences which are intimately tied to the goings on
in the Southern Baptist Convention over the past 10 years or
so. This may be totally different from the goings on in other
churches and denominations.
Anyway, what I see is both subtle and not so subtle differences
in the doctrinal statement and the concept of inerrancy that
we must pledge our allegiance to in order to be theologically
correct and above suspicion.
>
>The idea of canonical Scripture, i.e. of a document or corpus of documents
>containing a permanent authoritative record of divine revelation, goes back
>to Moses' writing of God's law in the wilderness (Ex. 34:27f.; Dt. 31:9ff.,
>24ff.). The truth of all statements, historical or theological, which
>Scripture makes, and their authority as words of God, are assumed without
>question or discussion in both Testaments. The Canon grew, but the concept
>of inspiration, which the idea of canonicity presupposes, was fully
>developed from the first, and is unchanged throughout the Bible. As there
>presented, it comprises two convictions.
>
>The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers,
>Inc.) 1962.
>
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal