Infallable vs. Inerrant vs. Literal

Who knows. Smarter people than me -- and they are legion -- can have at this topic all day long. For instance, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Or if you want a more "official" rendering, there's The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which can be found here:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

But I doubt any of that can persuade someone inclined to be skeptical of the foundation of the Bible.

For me, here's my take:

• I believe that God exists and that he has chosen to reveal himself to us
  
• I believe that revelation is in part delivered through written form
• I believe the Bible effectively communicates what God wanted to be communicated
• I believe we can derive great benefit from having an inclination of trust rather than an inclination of skepticism towards the Bible
• I believe the Devil loves arguments over peripheral things

Yes, every bullet there starts with "I believe" rather than "I can prove." I can't prove the Bible is inerrant or infallible or whatever; nobody else can either.

I'm a better person for investing at least some trust in the Bible. I desire to invest even greater trust. Ultimately, I wish to set aside all doubts about Christ and just drop my sword ... to stop struggling against my unbelief and just have faith. But I'm not there yet.

Note: Yes, I believe "faith in Christ" is a function of "trust in Bible." I know you don't.

* * *
I asked the Lord earlier today to heal whatever is ailing your kidney and to take from your heart the burden of concern over that.