37

Commentators give a number of explanations for the silence of the Synoptists on the raising of Lazarus: To protect Lazarus from persecution Differing source material Distinct criteria for what to include The Synoptics narrate other miracles, and saw no need to include this one as well The geographical and narrative focus of the Synoptics differs from that ...


30

The target audience of the writers of the gospels was to people who did not know about or did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Risen Lord. They included the virgin birth story because it was an important part of the narrative. Paul's target audiences, on the other hand, were already Christians and so, presumably, were already aware of the narrative of ...


20

Advocates for the virgin birth make the following arguments for why Paul didn't mention it: It wasn't controversial and therefore not worth mentioning It didn't need to be mentioned in order to accomplish the goals of the epistles It was a matter of some privacy He didn't know about it Points 1 & 2 overlap to some extent and thus are sometimes ...


12

I much prefer Nathaniel's answer to mine (the accepted answer), as it is considerably more thorough and answers more questions. I still believe the Paul's mission to the gentiles is a piece of the puzzle, but only a small part. I do not have the time to flesh this out, but I will leave it for completeness. Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles. The virgin ...


10

As Daniel pointed out in a comment, the Book of Mormon speaks to this question on the first page: And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ. This is important to note, as people do make mistakes, and have made some significant ones with ...


9

Even a "nearly" comprehensive list of inerrantist scholars from the past 100–200 years would be virtually impossible to compile and maintain. However, the best list that I am aware of that approaches your criteria would be the signatories of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Over 200 evangelicals signed the document (PDF), and it ...


8

There are 4 basic views regarding the interpretation of the great flood. Generally speaking, these connect to the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 as well. Global Flood The first camp is from those who take literal reading of Genesis. Despite some scientific drawbacks here, such as the fact that there does not exist enough water in any form (including ice) to ...


6

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is very recent in Christian history First, let's put biblical inerrancy into perspective. Two centuries or so ago, and for all of Christian history before that, not a single Christian church, denomination, or preacher held that the Bible is inerrant. The very idea of biblical inerrancy had never even occurred to anyone. ...


6

Since you didn't specify which perspective you're looking for (other than the view of skeptics, which is off-topic considering this site is meant to cover what Christian groups teach), I'm going to provide an answer from a Fundamentalist view - one that holds Scripture to be inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Before doing so, I need to point out, however, ...


6

Inerrancy: To say that the scriptures are "inerrant" literally means that they are "without error." That is, that there is not one single error in spelling, grammar, fact, etc. any where in all of scripture. Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until ...


6

There is not any real difference between the Catholic teaching on inerrancy of Scripture and the generic "Protestant" view given in the answer above. The two definitive documents in recent history are probably Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissiumus Deus and the Second Vatican Council Document Dei Verbum. These points more or less summarize ...


6

In an essay titled "Inerrancy as Inheritance: Competing Genealogies of Biblical Authority," Published in a book titled Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, a collection of essays by various authors, Dr. Thomas Buchan, Associate Professor of Church History at Nashotah House Theological Seminary reviews the late Dr. Harold ...


5

I believe I have found an earlier instance. According to New Advent, Contra Faustum was written in about 400. The same source says Jerome's Letter 27 was written in 384: I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired; but the Latin manuscripts of the Scriptures are ...


5

Having been a Protestant and now being a Catholic, it seems that it would be important to note that there is a prominent view among certain groups of Protestants that the Bible is meant to be taken as literally as possible (literal in all historical elements). The Catholic Church generally has not held such an opinion (it was basically mocked by Augustine). ...


5

I'm going to try to give you a good answer to the exact questions you asked; then I am going to suggest a perspective for your consideration based on the issues you have raised in the comments you made surrounding your questions. 1) If you don't believe in the inerrancy of scripture, on what basis can you interpret scripture? If you believe that scripture ...


5

A biblical case for inerrancy can certainly be made on the basis of passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:16, but these are limited in that they do not obviously refer to the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments. So to address this question it's best to turn to the writings of the early fathers. Clear statements of the truthfulness and perfection ...


5

In the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church,) Church tradition (the doctrine of the first seven Ecumenical Councils)is supported by scripture when scripture is properly interpreted by the Fathers (2nd - 6th. cents.) Passages in the text that appear, when taken literally, to contradict one another, are resolved through mystical interpretation (communion with the ...


5

I believe it is simply because when Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their respective Gospels, Lazarus was still a living testimony to Christ having raised him to life. They had no need to mention the miracle because it was so well known and could easily be confirmed by Lazarus himself. John wrote his gospel much later and by this time Lazarus had once more gone ...


5

I am answering the question : "Are there any reformed persons who argue for such a position" that is to say who "reject sensus unum and yet still affirm biblical inerrancy from a view of sensus plenior" ? I define sensus unum as the concept that any biblical text has a plain meaning, an obvious meaning and a single meaning. I define sensus plenior as ...


5

"the modern Bibles are bounded (sic) to have contradictions because of copyist errors and translation errors." The premise of the question is insubstantial. I am assuming the question speaks of the Greek scripture only and that the OP accepts the veracity of the Hebrew scripture due to the meticulous way in which the Hebrew scribes kept the ...


4

Which came first, Qur'an or Bible? Bible Did the Qur'an fall from the sky? NO Did the Bible fall from the sky? NO Did God(Allah) write the Qur'an with His finger? NO Did God(Jehovah) write the Bible with His finger? The Ten Commandment was, at least. Who wrote Qur'an and Bible? Qur'an and Bible were written by men and both claimed to be from God. How ...


4

The doctrine of inerrancy, a salient feature of Christian Fundamentalism, was "a creation not of the 16th century Reformation but of 19th century Princeton University theologians attempting to preserve traditional belief in divine origins."1 As you can see, there is evidence for supporting the notion that the doctrine of inerrancy is a relatively new ...


4

To answer your main question: The Council of Laodicea, being a regional council, would only have been binding on the Faithful living in the region (specifically, on areas that were represented by their bishops). Being only a regional, and not an ecumenical council, it is not binding on all the Faithful. For your question about scripture, the answer is a ...


4

According to the Catholic Catechism, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures. This statement is purposely ambiguous, as there is debate among Catholic theologians about what inerrancy entails. By saying ...


4

Inerrantists do not view the Masoretic text as inerrant in itself, but they consider it highly reliable. John Wenham, in Christ and the Bible (170ff.), outlines a variety of evidence for its faithful transmission of the original, all the while implying its imperfection: It was well known that the copying of the Scriptures had been carried out with almost ...


3

One way to demonstrate that, according to inerrantists, the apostles' recorded speeches are not necessarily inerrant, would be to find a speech that inerrantist theologians admit contains an error. At least one such example exists. In Acts 20:25, Paul speaks to the elders of Ephesus, and says: And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have ...


3

Scripture is inerrant. Man is not. The Bible needs to be interpreted. Even a translation is an interpretation, because the translator needs to decide what a passage means in order to put it into another language to be read at a different point in history. It is also necessary to determine whether transcription errors have crept in over time. The Catholic ...


3

First, it should be noted that not all protestants do accept the inerrancy of the canon. In fact, biblical inerrancy has really only been a topic of discussion during the last two centuries. Uniterians reject the doctrine of inerrancy, The Princton and Fuller Theological seminaries rejected this teaching and the and the entire Liberal Theology movement ...


3

The belief that the scriptures are without error or fault in all its teaching can be traced to the early Christians, and further. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, ...


3

The Bible affirms that its words are "breathed out by God Himself", and, indeed, God is the author--not men. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16 ESV In fact, the Scriptures are often referred to as "the word of God". For the word of God is ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible