Tags: Republic Day Essay WritingChemistry Homework SolverEssay Writing Process And ProcedureBrecht Techniques EssayDefine Values Morals And Ethics In Nursing PracticeBusiness School Essays 2012
Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them.
It is he to whom all will be held ultimately accountable.
Having innate authority as God’s self-disclosure, the Bible demands obedience.
The Bible is therefore not only authoritative, but —completely true, as originally intended, in all that it affirms, lacking any errors in its original, God-breathed manuscripts. Since God is “the God of truth” (Isa ) it follows that what he moved the authors of Scripture to write is likewise wholly true and without error.
This is, as Paul Feinberg explains, “the testimony of Scripture itself,” which self-identifies as God-breathed and incapable of erring (John ) down to individual words (John , cf. This is the strongest of the four arguments for inerrancy listed by Feinberg, given the clarity of the relevant texts.
This is not necessarily a contradiction, and is offered only as an example of the kind of very minor alleged discrepancy unlikely to call into question all of Scripture.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.
The case for inerrancy emerges from the crucible unscathed.
In light of the Bible’s authority and inerrancy, Christians must not cave into the pressure to conform to the unbiblical ideals of imperfect, created human beings.
However, because the argument can seem circular (the Bible is trustworthy because it claims to be), it’s worth reinforcing with the other arguments Feinberg lists: first, that inerrancy has enjoyed widespread belief throughout Church history, compelling Christians today to defer to the generations of giants upon whose shoulders they stand; second, that trust in any text of Scripture is only justifiable if one can trust all of it, although one is unlikely to concede that all of Scripture is cast into doubt if Ezra and Nehemiah don’t agree on the exact number of Asaph’s sons who returned from Babylon; and third, that denying inerrancy leads to denying other important doctrines, perhaps the weakest argument given the number of otherwise orthodox Christians who reject inerrancy.
Christian critics of inerrancy are not without a rebuttal, but it is not impressive.