Month: September 2025

Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.1

Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.1. KP10-IAB-08

A. Present purpose is to address claims of contradiction by laying out the proper framework in dealing with the difficulties and demonstrating with examples why we are justified in calling them “alleged contradictions”.

B. Origins of Discrepancies.

C. Common mistakes in alleging contradictions/ discrepancies .

D. Possibility of harmonization and principles of interpretation. The doctrine of inerrancy does not tell us a priori how we are to interpret individual passages. Rather, inerrancy maintains merely that whatever statements the Bible affirms are fully truthful when they are correctly interpreted in terms of their meaning in their cultural setting and the purpose for which they were written.

E. Some examples of alleged contradiction discussed and resolved – 1) Jesus cleansing of the temple, 2) Ordination of the disciples, 3) Temptations of Jesus, 4) Genealogies of Jesus, 5) Timing of Jesus cursing the fig tree and 6) Jesus sat on two or one donkey in the Triumphal entry, 6) date of Quirinius governorship etc.

You can watch the video at
Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.1. KP10-IAB-08

Will N.T. Wright Go to Heaven?

New video from N.T. Wright
What if the Reformers had Emphasized Ephesians Instead? What the Reformers Missed about Justification: –

Will NT Wright go to heaven? Given all his polemics against the idea of saved souls going to heaven, I will certainly rejoice with the angels in heaven upon hearing an affirmative answer from NTW. Furthermore, given NTW’s rejection of soul-body dualism (of which there are various forms), it would be most enlightening to know how NTW would describe the nature of his existence in heaven (however defined by NTW).

The title of the video should have been – “What NT Wright missed about justification, the soul being forgiven and received into presence of God.” Continue reading “Will N.T. Wright Go to Heaven?”

The Covenant of Redemption Does Not Entail Social Trinitarianism or Tritheism

In my previous post, Salvation is Grounded in the Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption, I described how the plan of salvation which began with the “Father’s will” was then accepted for completion by the Son and fulfilled by the operation of the Holy Spirit raises a challenging question.1It should be noted the sequence is logical rather than temporal. “Given that any covenant is premised on a plurality of participants, doesn’t the theology of Covenant of Redemption” lead to the questionable doctrine of social trinitarianism or worse, the heresy of tritheism?” Continue reading “The Covenant of Redemption Does Not Entail Social Trinitarianism or Tritheism”

  • 1
    It should be noted the sequence is logical rather than temporal.

Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy as a Necessary Consequence of Inspiration

Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy as a Necessary Consequence of Inspiration. KP10-IAB-07

A. The Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy
(1) Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms.
(2) Whatever God affirms is true.
(3) Therefore, whatever the Bible affirms is true.

Inerrancy is a necessary deduction from the Bible’s teaching concerning its inspiration.
OT requirements for God’s prophets to be distinguished from false prophets is premised on absolute truthfulness. The Bible teaches its own authority, and this requires inerrancy. Matt. 5:17 – 20 and John 10: 34 – 35. Inerrancy follows from what the Bible says about God’s character.

B. Limited inerrancy which seeks to replace inerrancy with infallibility is rejected
E. J. Young explains that ‘inerrancy’ meant the Bible does not err, and “infallibility” meant the Bible cannot err. Both are inseparable. Indeed, infallibility is an even stronger affirmation than inerrancy.
“E. J. Young explains that ‘inerrancy’ meant the Bible does not err, and “infallibility” meant the Bible cannot err. Both are inseparable. Indeed, infallibility is an even stronger affirmation than inerrancy.”
CBSI Article XI emphasizes: The two terms are, in context, inextricable. In short, inerrancy and infallibility affirm that the whole of Scripture is true and not only parts of it.
The focus of inerrancy is not limited to issues of factual accuracy in Scripture. It is primarily concerned about the authority of Scripture

C. Consequences of Denial of Inspiration and Inerrancy
Once an interpreter of Scripture begins to use human standards of moral judgment to evaluate the truth status and authority of the Bible, in whole or in part, the authority of the Bible is immediately denied. The real standard of judgment is now to be human moral reason and sensitivity…The abandonment of inerrancy renders every biblical text suspect until it passes or fails some test of human reason (Albert Mohler).

You can watch the full video at:
Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy as a Necessary Consequence of Inspiration. KP10-IAB-07