Introduction
Religious positions on social issues encapsulate a wide variety of instances such as gay marriage, stem cell research, the death penalty, divorce and other such issues that have ethical and moral underpinnings.
It is usually the case that religious positions on such issues often result in positive or negative effects depending on the inherent intent of the religious group involved.
In justifying their position on such issues, religious groups utilize the supposed inerrancy and infallibility of the bible, as stated by their respective religious doctrines, in order to show that their position on particular social issues is based off of the word of God (Durland, 2007).
Importance of the Study
What you have to understand is that the bible being inerrant does not mean that the interpretations of the bible that manifest itself through religious doctrine are sufficiently inerrant themselves.
On the other hand, the premise of the infallibility of the bible is based on the fact that it was created as a direct action of divine intervention wherein the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers of the text to create the scriptures that we know of in the present.
It must be noted though that various biblical scholars have indicated that the bible was originally meant as a guide for social interaction and not as a means of dictating how people should live. Not only that, it was not meant to encompass issues related to overpopulation, medicine and the spread of AIDS.
As such, this study sheds light on the current problem in utilizing the concepts of inerrancy and infallibility of the bible and will attempt to argue against its continued usage by religious groups who reinterpret the bible and use biblical scripture out of context in order to justify their own agendas.
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is related to its use in enlightening individuals that religious positions on social issues based on the inerrant and infallible nature of the bible are inherently fallacious.
It was seen in the work of Grass (2007) that interpretations of the certain text within the bible is selective in that different religious groups had diverging methods of interpreting particular types of scripture (Grass, 2007).
For example, one religious group in particular, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, actually interprets biblical text in such a way that they indicate that all women should be subservient to men and that only men should have leadership roles both in households and at work.
On the other hand, the religious group “Christians for Biblical Equality” interprets the bible under the context of men and women being equals and possessing the ability to have the same rights and roles.
It is due to these diverging methods of interpretation of biblical scripture that the justification of church groups regarding their position on certain social issues based on the inerrancy of the bible must be called into question.
For something to be considered inerrant it should not have multiple interpretations. It should have a single all encompassing interpretation that is not subject to the whims and agendas of third parties.
If such a text is subject to interpretation, then it cannot be considered completely inerrant and as such should not be utilized as a means of justifying particular social positions based on its supposed inerrancy.
Reference List
Durland, Stanley. “The Structure of Biblical Inspiration.” Journal Of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies 30, no. 2 (April 2007): 101-111, www.EBSCOhost.com .
Grass, Tim. “Scripture alone: ‘Is the Bible all we need?’.” Evangel 25, no. 3 (September 2007): 66-68, www.EBSCOhost.com .
Reference List from Main Paper
Audi, Robert. “Belief, faith, and acceptance.” International Journal For Philosophy Of Religion 63, no. 1-3 (February 2008): 87-102. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Beale, G. K. “Can the bible be completely inspired by god and yet still contain errors? a response to some recent “evangelical” proposals.” Westminster Theological Journal 73, no. 1 (Spring2011 2011): 1-22. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Durland, Stanley. “The Structure of Biblical Inspiration.” Journal Of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies 30, no. 2 (April 2007): 101-111. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Galli, Mark. “A New Bible Battle.” Christianity Today 55, no. 10 (October 2011): 11. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
Grass, Tim. “Scripture alone: ‘Is the Bible all we need?’.” Evangel 25, no. 3 (September 2007): 66-68. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Hansen, Collin. “Bishops Battle for the Bible.” Christianity Today 52, no. 12 (December 2008): 16. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
Hylton, Pauline. “Gifted by God.” Priority! 13, no. 2 (Summer2011 2011): 39. MasterFILE Complete, EBSCOhost .
Jelen, Ted G., and Linda A. Lockett. “American clergy on evolution and creationism.” Review Of Religious Research 51, no. 3 (March 2010): 277-287. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Kantzer, K. “Why I still believe the Bible is true.” Christianity Today 32, no. 14 (October 7, 1988): 22. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
“Leaving Out the Bible Can Lead to Incorrect Results.” Biblical Archaeology Review 37, no. 6 (November 2011): 12-66. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
“No Errors? The Baptists and the bible.” Time 114, no. 1 (July 2, 1979): 61. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Sherkat, Darren E. “Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) 92, no. 5 (December 15, 2011):1134-1150. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Sheler, Jeffery L. “Mysteries of the Bible. (cover story).” U.S. News & World Report 118, no. 15 (April 17, 1995): 60. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
Smith, Andrew. “Secularity and biblical literalism: confronting the case for epistemological diversity.” International Journal For Philosophy Of Religion 71, no. 3 (June 2012): 205-219. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
“The Evolution of the Debate.” Christianity Today 56, no. 7 (July 2012): 28. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .