You wrote: “When I speak of the inspiration of the Bible, I am not usually talking about some general idea of the Bible’s truthfulness, but I am speaking about its truthfulness in presenting all things necessary for salvation and life in Christ.”

How does one determine what the Bible indicates is necessary for salvation?

I ask because there doesn’t seem to be a consenses on that point.

But if we look at a verse like John 3:16, or a text like Eph 2, or Hebrews 1:1-4, or John 1:1-18, most Christians can read it together and agree on what is being taught. Then comes the disagreements, but it isn’t on the major message.

What I wanted to ask there, and I will reiterate here, is what I think to be the core of the question of “inerrancy”. Sure, I recognize that there are literary genres in Scripture, and that precise scientific expression is not intended. But the whole question of “inerrancy”, in my mind, is this - is *everything* the Bible says about God, man, and reality, true?

I draw the line in saying that there is nothing in the Bible that does not truly reflect reality. The universe is created by God at some starting point in time. That is clearly Genesis’ teaching. The Kingdom of David *is* the Kingdom of God, taken typologically. There is no conflict ultimately between Kings and Chronicles, taking the theological development of God’s revelation into account. Human beings are conceived in a state of depravity - so when God judged a nation, even their infants were fair game, as Psalm 137 (and other OT verses) states.

If it could be proved that something the Bible said is true is *not* (especially the Resurrection), I would say with Paul, “Let us eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”. God may speak in parables, types, and mysteries, but He does not lie to His people.

All this to say, I don’t think it’s quite enough to say that the Bible is true *theologically* - because I do not draw a line between theology and any other ology.

Amen.

This is why, as a non-trinitarian, I regard my trinitarian brothers and sisters as such. I don’t believe an imposed, invented and political issue like the trinity should keep me from the joy of fellowship with others who have tasted the grace of Jesus Christ - our redeemer.

Do you?

I think this gets at David Waynes intelligent critique, as well. Sure, we can describe doctrines that are not laid out in the Bible in so many words, but are ideas like the inerrancy, the trintity, or a personal relationship with Jesus really ESSENTIAL to salvation.

Clanging bells, we argue over the historical and scientific meaning of passsages, deny contradictions are not in the Bible, that any fool can see, etc. I fear that we do tend to miss the point. The Bible brings us good news, not a manual on “How to spot and kill a heretic” (and if it does, the one killed as a heretic was … Jesus.)

Again, many thanks for your insightful posts!

This is definitely where my beliefs rest when it comes to the Bible. I know this is unpopular, but I am pretty well done with the evangelical practice of using some arbitrary standard of “doctrinal purity” to determine who is part of the family and who isn’t. Ummm, isn’t that God’s decision based on the work of Christ rather than our decision based on what we think is right?

I have an adopted son and three birth children. Guess what? My three birth children don’t get to decide whether my adopted son really is a part of the family based on how he looks, what he thinks, or how he acts. They are all quite young, and, although they get along well, there are probably times when they are pretty sure he doesn’t fit in. There are probably times when he thinks he doesn’t fit in. However, my wife and I traveled halfway around the world to bring him into our home. We love him, and He is just as much our child as any birth child is.

And we’re just wicked humans.

“I know this is unpopular, but I am pretty well done with the evangelical practice of using some arbitrary standard of “doctrinal purity” to determine who is part of the family and who isn’t.”

These statements hit the heart of my problem. What is ESSENTIAL to our salvation? Surely we cannot believe whatever we like. Neither can we re-interpret the Bible to please ourselves.

Nor can we say “I believe in Jesus Christ.” So do the Moslems. Where to draw the line?

If it is impossible to know what is *essential* to salvation, how are we to be saved?

If it is possible to know what is *essential* to salvation, tell me what it is and why you are right.

Thanks in advance for any input!

Some people like to deconstruct this and other verses in the Bible and ask, “Well, what does he mean by ‘believe?’” I’m inclined to think that the word ‘believe’ means what it is/was conventionally thought to mean — in this context, believe in Jesus AND that what he said was true, i.e. that he came to save you from your sin — else Paul would have used a different word.

All of the other things are . . . perhaps tests by which you can know whether others are saved.