Re: NT truth (formerly inerrancy?)

From: William Hamilton <>
Date: Thu Jan 01 2004 - 14:22:05 EST

On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 11:50 AM, wallyshoes wrote:

> Sheila Wilson wrote:
>> 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
>> teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that
>> the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
> And that I buy, Sheila. I joined a church that says:
> "We believe that the Bible is the final authority in all matters
> pertaining to Christian faith and practice."
> That's it. "faith and practice" -- not as a science textbook -- or not
> even necessarily historical facts. If one can try to live up to that
> statement, one is well advised to be content and not add
> "infallibility" (IMHO)

Here is where I come down as well. You can get hopelessly wrapped
around the axle if you declare the Scriptures to
be infallible and fail to qualify the definition of "infallible". I
once met an individual who believed that the
Good Samaritan was a real person. Perhaps he was, perhaps not --
Scripture doesn't tell us,
and that's not the point of the account anyway.

 From Chapter 1 ("Of Holy Scripture") of the Westminster Confession:

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are
now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are
these: (snip)
  All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and
life. [7]


VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His
own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
from Scripture...

So the WC speaks of the Scriptures being the rule of faith and life and
how they reveal all things necessary for God's own glory, man's
salvation, faith and life.

It so happens that the Scriptures, when they speak of history, are
pretty accurate, and for that I'm glad. But that is not their primary
purpose. (And obviously the above remark depends on making some
judgments about the historicity of the creation account. But it seems
to me the primary emphasis of the creation account is that God is the
creator of the heavens and the earth, and He alone is to be worshipped,
not the sun, the moon, and the stars. The emphasis is on the creator,
not when he created or specifically how, and to some extent not even in
what sequence)

Bill Hamilton Rochester, MI 248 652 4148
Received on Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:22:05 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 14:20:04 EST