Historic Christianity is predicated
on many essential doctrines. Essential doctrines are those doctrines that
affect one’s salvation. Unbelief in any one or more of the essential doctrines
will result in a loss of salvation.
Christ’s bodily resurrection is one such
essential doctrine. Christians believe that Christ’s resurrection was a bodily
resurrection. Those who do not believe in this doctrine cannot be Christians.
Similarly, should Christians believe
that the Bible has no errors (biblical inerrancy)? If a Christian does not believe in unlimited inerrancy of
the Bible, would he/she lose salvation?
Some Christians believe that the
Bible has no errors in its redemptive teaching.
They believe in the Triunity of God, the Lordship of Christ, and all the other
essential doctrines. They also believe that the Bible is infallible i.e.
trustworthy. But they do not subscribe to the notion that the Bible has no
errors in all that it affirms. Would such Christians lose their salvation
because they do not believe in the unlimited inerrancy of the Bible?
I do not think so.
If a person believes that the Bible
is not trustworthy in its entirety,
then he/she would lose salvation. This situation is entirely different from
that of a Christian who believes that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy, but
is not absolutely inerrant.
Why would a Christian, who does not
believe in the unlimited inerrancy of the Bible, not lose salvation?
1. Belief in Essential Doctrines
Christians who do not believe in the
unlimited inerrancy of the Bible will not lose salvation if they believe the
essential doctrines.
The Nicene Creed contains the
essential doctrines of Historic Christianity:
I believe in
one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible.
And in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before
all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not
made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.
Who, for us
men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy
Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us
under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose
again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on
the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the
living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe
in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father
and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and
glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe
one holy universal and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the
remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of
the world to come.
Very minimally, belief in the
doctrines stated in the Nicene Creed is sufficient for one’s salvation.
2. Logical Conundrum in Unlimited Inerrancy
In order to arrive at the conclusion
that the Bible cannot err, unlimited inerrantists believe in the following
reasoning:
Premise 1: God cannot err.
Premise 2: The Bible is God’s Word.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, the Bible
cannot err.
This reasoning is not bulletproof.
Premise 1 is correct. But Premise 2 could
be questioned.
The term God’s Word can offer two meanings. It could either be the spoken
word of God or the written word of God.
In the case of the Bible, although it
is God’s word, it is not God’s spoken word. Rather it is the written word of
God.
If the Bible is a voice recording of
God’s spoken word, then one plausibly cannot argue against the veracity of the conclusion presented above.
But human agency/authorship was
involved in the creation of the Bible. The Bible was not dictated to human
authors. The human authors were inspired by God.
The presence of fallible human
authors and scribes, who were involved in the transmission of the Bible, presents
a window of opportunity for errors to creep in. Hence errors cannot be ruled
out in the Bible.
It is not necessary to dig deep into
how errors could creep into the Bible. It is sufficient to recollect the
results of the textual criticism of the Bible.
Textual critics have affirmed that the
New Testament is 99.5% accurate. It is a well-known fact that the New Testament
contains 0.5% errors. It is also a fact that these errors do not affect any significant
doctrine taught in the Bible.1
So,
at the very least, the Bible contains some errors. Hence, the conclusion that
the Bible cannot err because it is the word of God, can be disputed.
3. Essential or Not?
Finally, why is the doctrine of
Biblical Inerrancy not an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity?
As already discussed, the person who
believes in the limited inerrancy (i.e. that the Bible is in inerrant in only
the redemptive matters) has the dual option to believe in the essential
doctrines of Historic Christianity and reject unlimited inerrancy of the Bible.
Rejecting unlimited inerrancy need not affect one’s belief in the essential
doctrines of Historic Christianity.
Christianity’s truthfulness does not
depend on an inerrant Bible. As elaborated in my previous blog, the
truthfulness of Christianity is independent of the Bible.2
Therefore, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy cannot be considered as an
essential doctrine of Historic Christianity.
Endnotes:
1https://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#ANCHOR19
2https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2019/08/does-bible-contain-errors-or-not-how.html
Websites last
accessed on 24th August 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment