Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
From a reformed perspective we would talk about biblical inerrancy as being the Bible is true in everything that it claims to be true. And while it is true that it is not and doesn't claim to be a scientific record that doesn't mean that what it reports is not true. Yes there are accounts in there that are illustrative but there are also miraculous events that (I believe) are historical. There are also prophetic/apocalyptic writings that are still to be fulfilled.
It has been repeatedly shown that it is historically correct and that the content we have today is as close to the autographs (originals) as makes no difference.
Further the article quoted is from 2005.
|
All very true, but from a reformed perspective we have a problem when senior evangelicals in America go round producing stuff like the Chicago Confession. Don’t get me wrong, I’m on board with probably 99% of it but their choice of language is difficult to say the least. Scripture’s testimony about itself is that it is God-inspired. That is not quite the same thing as asserting that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Author of scripture, as the Chicago Confession does. Inspiration and authorship are different stages in the production of any material and scripture - which we believe to be inerrant in all matters of faith and conduct - chooses to identify God with the former and humans with the latter. It doesn’t do to mix them up.
I could go on at length but essay-scale posts are rarely helpful.