Inspired thought? Maybe to some.

Inspired thought? Maybe to some.

I had a thought here a moment ago…

You see I was reading over a link that Andrew Jones (TallSkinnyKiwi) in which he pointed to an excellent article about inerrancy of Scripture. (I had for some reason originally called Andrew, Tony... in that I apologize.) : )

I personally never had issue with it until about 4 or 5 years ago when I noticed that there was just no way to honestly say, that the Bible is inerrant and infallible without the original texts to look at. I think that one must be honest in this matter as to truly have integrity.

I believed and in many ways still do believe “inerrancy”. I do not subscribe to the view that a translation, in anyway is anointed or inerrant. Yet, when I read this article I thought it was very good at making the distinction between believing something because it is stated in the Bible, and not believing something that is not stated in the Bible. When we add to the Bible something that is not in it… we must be very careful that we are not adding teachings that where not intended by the author, be it man inspired by God or God writing in some automatic writing hyper spiritual way (I do not see that last one as true though some teach this without realizing it).

Then I had this thought. Why are we more worried about something that is not in the Bible… yet taught and believed, and less worried about something that is clearly taught? My point is over simplified as usual, yet, take Grace for instance.

Paul clearly taught about grace…that we are saved by grace through faith. Yet many in the school of Arminius, seem to cut across the teaching of Paul… Take for example Paul’s very clear statement in 2 Cor 12: 9. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (NIV)

"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

My grace is sufficient for you. Yet, one will in their actions deny this… by teaching that one must “maintain” their own salvation or be lost.

Now, some will say that we need the Bible to be inerrant, to show that it is infallible… so that we can prove that the propositions we base our faith on are true, so that we can prove Jesus was truly God and our Messiah, and…. Without the Bible as our standard, we will not be able to prove these things.
Yet, if something is not in the scripture, or we twist something that is to be something else… so we won’t look “wrong, inadequate, stupid, without proof… etc” then I think we are lacking integrity and honesty… which to me flies defiantly against the truth we are putting forth, let alone defiles the very teachings the Bible contains… and worse… is saying God is not sufficient to be able to carry out His plan without our being able to “prove” Him to others. (Take some time to think about that before you go off and write how far off the mark I am).

If Jesus is THE TRUTH and we are to stand on Truth, I see we must place our faith and be the blessed “who do not see, yet love”, and be content that that is what God desires. I wonder if we hinder the works of God by our attempts to “prove” the Bible, and in essence “prove” God Himself… Lest we fall prey to the arrogance of the Angels that fell for they did “see God face to face and did not love Him”.

Do I believe in inerrancy…? I have faith in the God who inspired the Bible… I have faith in the men God called in the OT and Jesus discipled in the NT… I have faith that God’s power, which is in His Word, is “perfect in weakness”. I would rather be wrong on inerrancy and be weak, than be strong and miss what the power of God can truly do if we just get out of the way.


Blessings,
iggy