Dr Paul Allen

This letter P is an example of an historiated initial (depicting Peter) in an illuminated Latin bible, 1407 AD. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) “The Invincible Power of the Inerrant Word.” We understand what the word inerrant means. It means that it is without any errors as it was recorded in its original autographs. This is a flawless book in all that it states. Psalm 12:6 states, “The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.” Refined to absolute perfection. It is a flawless book in all that it states. Psalm 119:140 : “Your word is very pure, therefore Your servant loves it.” Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is tested,” meaning: it has been put into the fire. There are no impurities that remain. It is the pure gold and silver of the truth of God. Jesus prayed in John 17:17 , “ Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth.” The word truthmeans reality, the way things really are. It does not mean that which the cultu

English: The differences of the Calvinism and Lutheranism Category:Calvinism Category:Lutheranism (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) 1. The New Calvinism, in its allegiance to the inerrancy of the Bible , embraces the biblical truths behind the five points of Calvinism ( TULIP ), while having an aversion to using the acronym (or any other systematic packaging) along with a sometimes-qualified embrace of Limited Atonement . The focus is on Calvinistic soteriology but not to the exclusion or the appreciation of the broader scope of Calvin’s vision. 2. The New Calvinism embraces the sovereignty of God in salvation and all the affairs of life and history, including evil and suffering. 3. The New Calvinism has a strong complementarian flavor (as opposed to egalitarian) with an emphasis on the flourishing of men and women in relationships where men embrace a call to robust, humble, Christ -like servant- leadership. 4. The New Calvinism leans toward being culture-affirming, as opposed t

Titlepage of the New Testament section of a German Luther Bible, printed in 1769. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Those who believe in biblical inerrancy (i.e., the Bible does not contain any errors, historic, scientific, or otherwise) normally start with a theological conviction which is arrived at deductively. They believe, like I do, that God is perfect and without error. They also believe, like me, that the Bible is God’s word. Conclusion? The Bible is perfect and without error. Once this theological presupposition has been adopted, the Scriptures can be understood and interpreted in light of this belief. The problem often arises that one creates a new hermeneutic (i.e., method of interpretation) that can manipulate the text to make it conform to this doctrine of inerrancy. Any inductive claim to error is rejected outright and interpreted in light of some sort of “inerrant hermeneutic.” Others, however, do not approach the Scripture with such a theological presupposition. They ta

English: Peter's vision of a sheet with animals, from Acts 10; illustration from Henry Davenport Northrop, "Treasures of the Bible," published 1894 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Many believe in a doctrine called inerrancy . More particularly, we call it “ reasoned inerrancy ” to distinguish it from other more “technically precise” models.  In short: We believe that the Bible , when interpreted correctly, is true in everything that it intends to teaches. Those are some important qualifiers: “in everything it intends to teach” and “when interpreted rightly.” This assumes that some of the that which the Bible records is not necessarily its teaching. It also assumes that the truth is only found when the Bible is understood the way it was meant to be understoodand that it can be understood wrongly. A wrong interpretation is not inerrant. One of the first questions that asked at Bible College was how do we know when a passage in the Bible is supposed to be believed? In ot

Bernardo Strozzi - Christ and the Samaritan Woman - WGA21931 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) 1. Use of Hyperbole and Exaggeration Just because one believes in inerrancy does not mean that he or she believe in a “technically precise” view of truth. The Bible can and does contain exaggerations and hyperbole while not effecting inerrancy. Take John 4:39 as an example. In this passage, a Samaritan woman spoke of Jesus and said: “He told me all that I ever did” (emp. added). Did Jesus really tell her everything she has ever done? That would take quite a bit of time! As well, Paul says of false teachers that they “understand nothing” ( 1 Tim. 6:4 ). Do these false teachers really understand nothing? Nothing at all? Or is Paul speaking hyperbolically concerning their ignorance of truth? The latter is most definitely the case. 2. Speaking According to Cultural Convenience Sometimes the Bible speaks in accordance with cultural understanding without any attempt to correct that understanding. Fo

Image via Wikipedia So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man , then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on My own but speak just what the Father has taught Me” (John 8:28). The question of the written Word of God boils down to a question of the Incarnate Word of God. We defend the Bible ’s authority and inerrancy as the Word of God because Jesus Himself claimed it to be so. It is not possible to have an inerrant Jesus without having an inerrant Bible. Consider it this way: the overwhelming majority of scholars admits that the Bible is the most generally reliable historical document we have from the ancient Near East. Even without granting the inerrancy of Scripture, it is clear that the man Jesus Christ claimed to be a prophet. Everyone admits this, including liberal theologians. Jesus’ claim to be a prophet makes it important to investigate what Jesus taught about the Bible, because a prophet was required to be more than just gene

Image via Wikipedia All Scripture is God -breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness ( 2 Timothy 3:16). In recent years a number of semi-conservative theologians have questioned whether we should hold to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or infallibility. After all, they say, this quest for absolute certainty reflects a “Greek, Aristotelian mindset” that is not really compatible with the nature of “sheer faith.” They say that Christianity is a matter of “faith” and we don’t need “absolute certainty.” We notice immediately that such statements as these presuppose that faith is incompatible with certainty. That is, they presuppose to some degree the modern existentialistic view of faith, which sees faith as a “leap in the dark.” Still, we can imagine that God might have given us the information about redemption in another way. He might have simply provided us with a lot of human testimonies. The Gospels , for instance, might merely be