Punctum Saliens

Bruce makes an excellent point:

The early Church over several hundred years, canonized the Bible. We accept their judgment as to what is the inerrant Bible. How do we know that their judgment is correct? Why do most Evangelicals accept their judgment on the canon of Scripture, yet totally reject dozens of other truths they taught. How do we decide what to accept or reject? Is the Pope the final authority? Is John MacArthur the final authority? Or perhaps you and I are?

Just a thought …

What would you say to someone who insisted that Moby Dick was really about a literal ship captain and a literal white whale? Or to someone who insisted that The Scarlet Letter was really about a literal woman and a literal affair she had with a literal pastor? Or to someone who insisted that The Bible was about a literal …

Like I said … just a thought

These are some “stream-of-consciousness” thoughts on what it means for the Bible to be inerrant. So please take them as that — spontaneous ideas and questions that have not been fully thought out. As always … comments are solicited.

Does inerrant mean true? Absolutely true? True absolutely?

Does inerrant mean historically accurate, precise?

Does inerrant mean that Jesus really said the words attributed to him in the gospels? Does inerrant apply to the words spoken by Jesus — i.e. Jesus really said the words and the words he said are also inerrant?

If so, then Jesus’ parables are inerrant even though the events they depict did not actually occur. The story of “The Prodigal Son” is inerrant even though said son never existed.

So, the parables are inerrant in that their symbolism is accurate, true?

But back to true. If the entire Bible is inerrant then the entire Bible is true. But is the entire Bible equally true? If we are talking absolute truth then yes, the entire Bible would be equally true because absolute is absolute, no?

If the entire Bible is absolute truth then we seem to have a slight problem. Absolute truth does not change — otherwise it’s not absolute. One absolute truth cannot alter, modify, negate, replace another absolute truth. Therefore, we are bound by every absolutely true verse and therefore by the Old Testament Law and by the New Testament teachings. Absolute truth is not applicable based on social situations or time period or any other restriction. If this verse does not apply to me today then this verse cannot be absolute truth, i.e. truth without condition.

So, is the Bible, then conditional truth? This verse is true under these conditions, for these people, at these times, under these social situations?

But if it’s conditionally true, then isn’t it conditionally inerrant?