Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Sufficiency of Scripture’ Category

lie or truth

This is my sixth posts in a series responding to some arguments against inerrancy presented by a certain blogger.  Today we shall look at the following paragraph:

I believe that the doctrine of inerrancy was conveniently brought in by the Church to protect the Bible as a consecrated canon of scripture, with the authority to teach and convict.  With this, the false doctrine of “papal infallibility” was also established.  However, the assertion of inerrancy is a lie on both counts, considered to be the lesser of two evils; the other being chaos!  Now, what started as a lie is now a deeply entrenched doctrine that every professing Christian is compelled to accept as true or be branded as a heretic!  But how can we claim to have the truth in Jesus, when we are forcing many to believe a lie?!  It shows a lack of faith in God’s ability to protect His Church and reveal His Word to true believers.

Here is my response:

(more…)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

error

This is actually my fifth posts in my series responding to some arguments against inerrancy.  I was mistaken last week to say that I only had two posts.  Today’s objection we shall look at is as follows:

However, no where is it written, in any verse of any chapter of any book of either Hebrew or Christian Bible that ‘scripture’ equals ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’!  What it does say is that God’s words are flawless (Psa 12:6), His Law is perfect (Psa 19:7), that His word will not return to Him void (Isa 55:11), that His words will all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18) and that all scripture is profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16).  However, it should be crystal clear that not every word written in the scriptures (whether Jewish or Christian) were the very words of God, so they do not all have the same claim to flawlessness.

Here’s my response:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

silly objection to inerrancy

Last month I wrote two posts in which I evaluated some arguments that a woman presented for the rejection of Inerrancy.  My first post was titled “Does 2 Timothy 4:13 undermine the Doctrine of Inerrancy?” followed by a second that was titled “.”  Today’s post I want to look at another criticism offered against inerrancy:

 I believe the teaching of Biblical inerrancy has hurt more than it has helped the Christian faith.  I think it could be responsible for the stunted growth among Christians, who do not develop their relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.

Here’s my response:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

John_Frame

What is the role of Scripture and extrabiblical data in light of the sufficiency of Scripture?

I appreciate John Frame’s definition of the sufficiency of Scripture not as “sufficiency of specific information but sufficiency of divine words” with the note that “Scripture contains divine words sufficient for all of life.” (John Frame, Doctrine of Christian Life, 157).  I think this definition is helpful because it allows us to delineates the use of Biblical and extra-biblical data in knowing and doing things as Frame explained in this extended quote:

If you remember that the sufficiency of Scripture is a sufficiency of divine words, that will help us to understand the role of extrabiblical data, both in ethics and theology.  People sometimes misunderstand the doctrine of sufficiency by thinking that it excludes the use of any extrabiblical information in reaching ethical conclusions.  But if we exclude the use of extrabiblical information, then ethical reflection is next to impossible.

Scripture itself recognizes this point.  As I said earlier, the inscriptional curses does not forbid seeking extrabiblical information.  Rather, they forbid us to equate extrabiblical information with divine words.  Scripture itself requires us to correlate what it says with general revelation.  When God told Adam to abstain from the forbidden fruit, he assumed that Adam already had general knowledge, sufficient to apply that command to the trees that he could see and touch.  God didn’t need to tell Adam what a tree was, how to distinguish fruits from leaves, or what it meant to eat.  These these were natural knowledge.  So God expected Adam to correlate the specific divine prohibition concerning one tree to his natural knowledge of the trees in the garden.  This is theology as application: applying God’s word to our circumstances.

The same is true for all divine commands in Scripture.  When God tells Israel to honor their fathers and mothers, he does not bother to define ‘father’ and ‘mother’ and to set forth an exhaustive list of things that may honor or dishonor them.  Rather, God assumed that Israel have some general knowledge of family life, and he expects them to apply his commands to that knowledge.”

(John Frame, Doctrine of Christian Life, 163).

Some of the highlights I put in bold font.

I think Frame is building upon the observation that I first read from the apologist Cornelius Van Til of the need of general and special revelation being inter-dependent.  God’s Special Revelation always interpret His General Revelation and extrabiblical information; but note here that Special Revelation assumes that there are extrabiblical information out there; moreover, it will never contradict God’s special revelation.

For more quotes from John Frame, I invite you to “like” our blog’s face book page which will be featuring daily morning quotes from Frame’s book, The Doctrine of the Christian Life.

Read Full Post »