It is a BIG Error to Claim the Bible is Innerant

Sometimes Christians struggle to understand the truth of the Bible. They say things like "the Bible is clear" just before they something about which the Bible is decidedly unclear. Let me share a bit what I told a Christian about this topic in a recent comment exchange on social media:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, commenter. When you said: "I'd say the Bible is very clear that all are enemies to God that don't believe in the Savior (Romans 5:10) will lead to death," perhaps you're unaware that the New Testament book of Romans is an ancient Roman writing style called “Prosopopeia.” It's basically setting up arguments (we might call them strawmen today) and then knocking them down. One reading Romans must be very careful to not make theological determinatives out of the set up arguments. "All have sinned" is an argument set up by the religious leaders' belief that being Jewish alone made them righteous and the writer of Romans (likely the Apostle Paul) is saying that they are no different than the people they call "sinners."

Reading these passages without understanding this style leads one to believe many things not written in the book. And like many ancient writings it is written so that it climaxes towards the middle, not the end. Which shows the purpose of the book is to demonstrate that "there is now no condemnation..." harkening back to when the book says Jesus' act is greater than Adam's act. That means, if one believes a man eating a piece of fruit some 6k years ago makes everyone a sinner, but Jesus act does not make everyone NOT a sinner, then that person is proclaiming Adam's act as greater than Jesus' act and are, thus, a heretic.

As regards to your statement that all need to repent of their sin, turn away from it and trust in the savior, then what does "repent" mean to you? Does it mean "say a magic prayer and join a club?" Or does it mean, as Romans 12:2 says, to constantly challenging your beliefs so your mind can be renewed from its echo chamber (era or "aion") and you can know what is good and right? The word repent literally means to "change your mind and change your direction." That is very different that saying a prayer to receive a "get-outta-hell-free-card."

Jesus' statements quoted by New Testament writers of "through me" or "in my name" were very common sayings for religious teachers of the day. If one followed a teacher named Bob, they would do things "in Bob's name" and be a Bobian. Bob's followers would know that access to heaven came "through Bob," or through Bob's teachings and guidance. Jesus isn't seen running around calling himself "God," in fact, he literally called himself the "son of man," a title given to Ezekial three times and one likely specifically chosen by Jesus for that purpose as I'm told the word is a tongue twister in Aramaic. It's very important we know the context of history rather than read the Bible simply in a 21st century American understanding.

The Bible is clear on very few things, and when we lack contextual and historical understanding, it is almost impossible for us to interpret the Bible well. Even the authorship of the Bible is in doubt is this is one thing that really threw me as I began to learn about the Bible in formal training. There is almost no evidence to support that any of the named apostles had anything to do with the writing of the gospels. Heck, even some of the books written by Paul we now know were NOT written by Paul. We also know Peter's epistles were not written by Peter. And likely Revelation was not written by the Apostle John. The names placed on the different NT books were placed there in the second century. So, this criteria is out. If we can't be certain of the authors, it's very difficult to consider that we know for certain just about anything. So, it requires us to wrestle with the text, together. In relationship. Rather than throw rules and certainties at each other.

The revelatory nature of the Bible was a citation you gave to support the inerrancy of the Bible. Well, since the books of the NT were written decades after the life of Jesus it was quite easy to be 'revelatory.' Also, most of the "revelation" accuracy is measured against the Bible itself, rather than verified by much outside corroboration. And often, the books themselves contradict one another. Matthew tells of young Jesus being taken from Bethlehem to Egypt. Luke says the family went directly back to Nazareth. Mark and John tell nothing of the birth story at all and, likewise, it is never mentioned by Jesus nor any of the apostles in their writings. One would think a virgin birth would be an impressive CV stuffer, but nobody seems intent to use it to support their claims about Jesus.

What more can I say about your beliefs that these books were universally recognized by early Church leaders in their teaching and preaching ministry (they weren't, unless you have a different meaning for "universal"); that the books "bore the marks of inspiration." Who determined what those marks are? It was human beings and they could have been wrong. Many believe Jude and the Revelation of John should not have been included in the canon while some believe books like the "Maccabees" books should be or "The Shepherd of Tobias." It was political wrestling that ultimately closed the canon - yet Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians still disagree on which should be in and which should not. So, "the mark" seems a fleeting measure. Can we trust the words of early fathers like Justin Martyr to guide us into verifying the innerancy of the protestant Bible? Well, Justin tended to suggest the concepts of a virgin birth, resurrection and ascending to heaven were no different than what the pagans believed about their gods. He also was a huge fan of Plato.

So, do I believe we should throw the books of the protestant canon out, due to the clear truth that we can't determine any protestant claim of their Bible to be "clear?" Heck no. It's a beautiful book, particularly the radical story of Jesus - who is the opposite of a MAGA rightwing Christian, but was instead a fierce opponent of wealth, power and status quo. If we see the Bible for what it is, it can carry those of us who rely on it for courage, strenght, hope and wisdom. But if we hold onto the folly of innerancy, we not only set ourselves up to abuse Hebrew and Christian sacred texts, we make it super easy for the rest of the world to believe we are delusional and dissonant, denying the obviously provable. And that does not serve the message of Jesus, at all.