Is the Bible inerrant? Several evangelicals assert that one must hold to biblical inerrancy/infallibility in order for the Bible to be authoritative. This postion, however, seems to be much closer to Modernism and Cartesian epistemology than to what the biblical text says itself. Inerrancy is a modern agenda that much be forced onto the text before one can extrapolate it from the text. Thus it is not proper contextual exegesis. So do we through away biblical authority too? No, we proceed with faith through a position of critical realism. I believe that the Bible becomes the Word of God through the work of the Holy Spirit in illumination. With this position I not only can maintain my belief in the Bible’s authority, but I can also accept the deliverances of science and biblical criticism. For my academic work on this subject please read my paper, “Karl Barth’s Ontology of Holy Scripture.” I have uploaded it for your reading pleasure.
Karl Barth’s Ontology of Holy Scripture
I also wish to disclose a quote from T.F. Torrance, who is a very important British theologian and also a scholar in Barth’s thought:
You see, in their dualist way of thinking, evangelicals divide God from holy scripture. And then, to make holy scripture divine, they identify the words of scripture witht he words of God – as though God in himself spoke a human language. In a way that’s a mythologising, an anthropologising, of God. This means, therefore, that they don’t interpret the holy scriptures as referring to truth independently of the scriptures, and therefore they have deified the scriptures. In turn, that means that you end up with God versus scripture or scripture versus God – and that Barth won’t have. In a way, it’s a kind of positivism of holy scripture.
(That quote was taken from an interview with Andrew Walker in Betraying the Gospel: Modern Theologians and Christian Orthodoxy, pages 69-70).
Professor Torrance also made an interesting connection between Roman Catholicism and Fundamentalism through the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Though most Evangelicals believe that this doctrine is contained in the RC Church only, Torrance contends that Fundamentalists also utilize the Immaculate Conception – not in reference to Mary – but rather in reference to the Bible. In both traditions then the Word of God (Jesus) can only come through a prior perfection, whether it be a perfect mother (RC’s belief about Mary) or a perfect text (Fundamentalism’s Innerrancy).
(From a lecture series on Christology delivered at Union Theological College in Belfast, Ireland).
Filed under: Theology
Hello Craig the Phil: (I like that name…hope it doesn’t offend you
Your personal page here is interesting and I like it very much. However, having said that, I just can’t let your comment — “Inerrancy is a modern agenda….” — slide.
I addressed this same, oft-repeated misconception, in brief, on the C-Bus-C blog awhile back. But as the tenor of that site seems to be geared more towards the critical, the witty, and the superficial, rather than the beneficial, the theological, and the thoughtful, I didn’t go too deeply into the subject over there. The ADHDs would have cried out in unison
While Inerrancy as a DEBATE may be modern, it is abundantly clear the CONCEPT was nevertheless held throughout Church History. You won’t find much “discussion” of it, per se, inasmuch as it was a “given,” by both papists and non-papists. It is, I suppose, more overheard than heard among the apostolic, patristic, and Reformed writings.
Allow me, if you will, to bring to your attention the following citations (all emphases added):
-Clement of Rome, died ca. 100 A.D.:
“Ye have searched the Scriptures, which ARE TRUE, which were given through he Holy Ghost; and ye know that NOTHING UNRIGHTEOUS OR COUNTERFEIT IS WRITTEN IN THEM” (Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 45, verses 2 and 3)
-Athenagorus, 2nd Century:
“But we have for witnesses of the things we apprehend and believe, PROPHETS, MEN WHO HAVE PRONOUNCED CONCERNING GOD AND THE THINGS OF GOD, GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD….WHO MOVED THE MOUTHS OF THE PROPHETS LIKE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS… our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments-for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of MOSES OR OF ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH, AND THE OTHER PROPHETS, WHO, LIFTED IN ECSTASY ABOVE THE NATURAL OPERATIONS OF THEIR MINDS BY THE IMPULSES OF THE DIVINE SPIRIT, UTTERED THE THINGS WITH WHICH THEY WERE INSPIRED, THE SPIRIT MAKING USE OF THEM AS A FLUTE-PLAYER BREATHES INTO A FLUTE.” (A Plea for the Christians, chapters 7 and 9)
-Justin Martyr, died ca. 165 A.D.:
“I consider it reasonable to recur to our progenitors, who both in point of time have by a great way the precedence of your teachers, and WHO HAVE TAUGHT US NOTHING FROM THEIR OWN PRIVATE FANCY, NOR DIFFERED WITH ONE ANOTHER, nor attempted to overturn one another’s positions, but without wrangling and contention received from God the knowledge which also they taught to us. For neither by nature nor by human conception is it possible for men to know things so great and divine, but by the gift which then descended from above upon the holy men, who had no need of rhetorical art, nor of uttering anything in a contentious or quarrelsome manner, but to present themselves pure to the energy of the Divine Spirit, in order that THE DIVINE PLECTRUM ITSELF, DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN, AND USING RIGHTEOUS MEN AS AN INSTRUMENT LIKE A HARP OR LYRE, MIGHT REVEAL TO US THE KNOWLEDGE OF THINGS DIVINE AND HEAVENLY. Wherefore, as if with one mouth and one tongue, they have in succession, and IN HARMONY WITH ONE ANOTHER, taught us both concerning God, and the creation of the world, and the formation of man, and concerning the immortality of the human soul, and the judgment which is to be after this life, and concerning all things which it is needful for us to know, AND THUS IN DIVERS TIMES AND PLACES HAVE AFFORDED US THE DIVINE INSTRUCTION.” (Hortatory Address to the Greeks, chapter
-Theophilus of Antioch, died ca. 185 A.D.:
But MEN OF GOD CARRYING IN THEM A HOLY SPIRIT AND BECOMING PROPHETS, BEING INSPIRED AND MADE WISE BY GOD, BECAME GOD-TAUGHT, AND HOLY, AND RIGHTEOUS. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things…” (Book 2, chapter 9)
-Irenaeus of Lyons, died ca. 202 A.D.:
“If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that THE SCRIPTURES ARE INDEED PERFECT, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account(2) destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries.” (Against Heresies, book 2, chapter 27, para. 2)
-Clement of Alexandria, died ca. 216 A.D.:
“I could adduce ten thousand Scriptures of which not ‘one tittle shall pass away’ without being fulfilled; for the mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit hath spoken these things…FOR TRULY HOLY ARE THOSE LETTERS THAT SANCTIFY AND DEIFY; and the writings or volumes that consist of those holy letters and syllables, the same apostle consequently calls ‘inspired of God.’” (Exhortation to the Heathen, chapter 9, para. 1 and 4)
-Origen, died ca. 255 A.D.:
“The sacred books are not the compositions of men, but . . . they were composed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father OF ALL THINGS through Jesus Christ.” (De principiis, 4. 9)
“THE WORD OF GOD CANNOT POSSIBLY BE UNTRUE; HENCE NO ERRORS OR CONTRADICTIONS CAN BE ADMITTED IN SCRIPTURE” (Joan., X, iii).
-Augustine, 354-430 A.D.:
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I MOST FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE AUTHORS WERE COMPLETELY FREE FROM ERROR. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. (Letter 82, to Jerome, chapter 1, para. 3)
-Thomas Aquinas, ca. 1225-1274:
“The Spirit is the principal author of sacred Scripture; and inspired man is the instrument.”(Quaestiones quodlibetales, 7.16)
“The Holy Spirit NEVER UTTERS WHAT IS FALSE…NOTHING FALSE can underlie even the literal sense of Scripture…thus, Augustine was correct in affirming that THE AUTHORS OF SCRIPTURE HAVE NOT ERRED.” (Summa Theologiae, 1a, 1, 8,10 ad 3, 2a, 2ae, 172, 5 ad 3.)
-Martin Luther, 1483-1546:
“If a different way to heaven existed, no doubt God would have recorded it, but there is no other way. Therefore let us cling to these words, firmly place and rest our hearts upon them, close our eves and say: Although I had the merit of all saints, the holiness and purity of all virgins, and the piety of St. Peter himself, I would still consider my attainment nothing. Rather I must have a different foundation to build on, namely, these words: ‘God has given His Son so that whosoever believes in Him whom the Father’s love has sent shall be saved.’ And you must confidently insist that you will be preserved; and you must boldly take your stand on His words, which no devil, hell, or death can suppress. Therefore no matter what happens, you should say: THERE IS GOD’S WORD. THIS IS MY ROCK AND ANCHOR. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go. THE WORD MUST STAND, FOR GOD CANNOT LIE; AND HEAVEN AND EARTH MUST GO TO RUINS BEFORE THE MOST INSIGNIFICANT LETTER OR TITTLE OF HIS WORD REMAINS UNFULFILLED.” (Sermon in “Kirchenpostille”)
And again,
“I HAVE LEARNED TO ASCRIBE THE HONOR OF INFALLIBILITY ONLY TO THOSE BOOKS THAT ARE ACCEPTED AS CANONICAL. I AM PROFOUNDLY CONVINCED THAT NONE OF THESE WRITERS HAS ERRED. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.” (WA, 2. 618. Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium … Martini Lutheri defensio 11519)
-John Calvin, 1509-1564:
“This is the principle that distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God has spoken to us and are fully convinced that THE PROPHETS DID NOT SPEAK OF THEMSELVES BUT AS ORGANS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UTTERED ONLY THAT WHICH THEY HAD BEEN COMMISSIONED FROM HEAVEN TO DECLARE – all those who wish to profit from the Scriptures must first accept this as a settled principle, that the law and the prophets are not teachings handed on at pleasure of men or produced by men’s minds as their source, but are DICTATED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT….WE OWE TO THE SCRIPTURES THE SAME REVERENCE AS WE OWE TO GOD, SINCE IT HAS PROCEEDED FROM HIM ALONE, AND HAS NOTHING OF HUMAN ORIGIN MIXED WITH IT” (Commentary, on 2 Timothy 3:16)
-John Wesley, 1703-1791:
“…every part (of Scripture) is worthy of God and all together are one body, WHEREIN IS NO DEFECT, no excess.” (Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 9)
Further quotes from Polycarp, Cyprian, Athanasius, Tertullian, Basil the Great, et al, through John Owen, Francis Turretin, et al, as well as the various Confessions and Synods, could be provided. However, I think I have made the point by the above quotes (and more especially, which neither time nor space permits — as could be seen through their various commentaries, epistles, and homilies) that albeit under different terms, the “inerrancy” or “infallibility” of the Scriptures WAS, in fact, held and accepted throughout the history of the Church by its greatest doctors, and is not simply a modern, Warfieldian concept.
joebib
P.S. Additionally, I fancy I could satisfactorily demonstrate Inerrancy is not “forced” from the text of Scripture, as you assert, but is inexorably concluded
Greetings, and it is good to dialogue with you again Joebib.
I concede your point, that indeed, there is an understanding of Scripture as perfect or inerrant that is perennial in Church history. I have read several of the Patristics and I am completely aware of their positions. I would just like to emphasize the difference in view of perfection/inerrancy than from the modern doctrine. My “modern construction” statement of course was for the blog and I did not have the necessary time to qualify it through some sort of Thomistic method… ha ha ha.
Also remember that Augustine, Origen, Clement, etc also thought that the text could have many meanings (literal, spiritual, allegorical)… and thus because they had a high view of Scripture – they sorted out contradictions through the allegorical hermeneutic.
I believe that the Bible is a perfect witness so does that mean that I believe in textual inerrancy? I don’t think so – I don’t necessarily think that it is errant either. I just try to think about the text in the way that the text would like me to think about it, which is, I believe, as a witness to the true Word of God through a series of narratives that were co-authored by both God and human.
Thus, while I concede your point that there has always been a high view of Scripture… I must disagree that the same Modern/propositional view (a la Warfield & Co) can be equated to the view of the early Church fathers and figures.
Shalom
Yes, I enjoy the dialogue as well.
“Also remember that Augustine, Origen, Clement, etc also thought that the text could have many meanings (literal, spiritual, allegorical)… and thus because they had a high view of Scripture – they sorted out contradictions through the allegorical hermeneutic.”
Excellent point, Craig, and quite true. I was wondering if you were going to throw down that card
Still though, while their employment of different modes of interpretation certainly helped resolve a lot of problems with the text, that’s not necessarily mutually exclusive to what they believed — and said — about the nature of the inspiration of the Scriptures.
“I just try to think about the text in the way that the text would like me to think about it, which is, I believe, as a witness to the true Word of God through a series of narratives that were co-authored by both God and human.”
Is that an echo I hear from the venerable Swiss from Basel?
“…I must disagree that the same Modern/propositional view (a la Warfield & Co) can be equated to the view of the early Church fathers and figures.”
I still can’t agree with you here. I do admit that Warfield, as well as those who have taken up his mantle — Sproul, Geisler, etc. — have obviously forged new trails and brought new definitions to the concept of Inerrancy. But, I think that simply because that which at first glance may seem to be beyond what the various Fathers and Doctors can be documented as having actually SAID in so many words, it is still, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same view to which they held.
Consider this:
Irenaeus says that ANY supposed discrepancy is due to our inability to comprehend the divine nous.
Clement (Alex.) defends the very syllables and even the GRAMMATA themselves — the same word the Apostle uses in the Timothy passage, BTW.
Which practice, incidentally, that of the building of their cases/arguments on specific words, or spellings of words, can be seen throughout many of the writings of the Ante- and Post- Nicene Fathers.
Augustine, similar to Irenaeus, believed alleged errors to be the product of the faulty transmission of the apographs.
And so forth.
So, Craig, my question to you is as follows…
How is any of what they have written, that which they believed in, either in essence or practice, functionally different than belief in a plenary, verbally inspired — and inerrant — document?
joe
“When discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize them, let them pass. It does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith.” – Martin Luther
“Those who wish to prove to unbelievers that Scripture is the Word of God are acting foolishly, for only by faith can this be known.” – Jean Calvin
“The Bible does not give us a doctrine of its own inspiration and authority that answers all the various questions we might like to ask. Its witness on this subject is unsystematic and somewhat fragmentary and enables us to reach important but modest conclusions.” – Clark Pinnock
“In the last analysis the inerrancy theory is a logical deduction not well supported exegetically. Those who press it hard are elevating reason over Scripture.” – Pinnock
“In short, the Fathers assumed that the general thrust of scripture was to direct humans toward a God who is compassionate, just, loving, not contrary to the dictates of reason, and so on. Any scriptural passage which seems to suggest otherwise needs to be read interpretively, not literally.
Inerrancy a return to the simple faith of our fathers? Not quite. It’s more regression than return.” – from some blogger like me
So I figured that I would load up a little ammo because I usually just write what I think… I’m on pain meds right now too… I just got my wisdom teeth pulled a few hours ago (so you have already one because I have lost all sagacity…. ha ha ha)
I recognize that the early Church fathers had a high view of Scripture… but I cannot except that it was functionally different from a belief in the plenary verbal theory. Neo-platonism is what drove the Fathers to come up with the allegorical method, and rationalism is what drove the fundamentalists to come up with the Chicago statement of inerrancy. I’m saying… to hell with both. Yes, let’s have a high view of Scripture… but for let us also recognize that it explains itself on its own terms – and it never says that it is full inspired. I says that God is perfect. That Jesus is the Word of God. But it never says that the Bible (as we have it now in the eclectic textual format) is also perfect or fully inspired.
T.F. Torrance is a Patristic scholar… J.B. Torrance too… and they think that the doctrine of inerrancy is simply the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That is, a perfect Word can only come from a perfect vessel, be it Mary or the Bible. Same problem; God doesn’t need a perfect vessel to give us his Word.
If I believe in a perfect inspired document (a 4th member of the Trinity) – I would call myself a gnostic, not an orthodox Christian.
Sorry if I was writing a bit loopy…. i’m no pain meds ):
Shalom
Craig the Phil;
Greetings in Christ’s Name.
So sorry to hear about your molars. Never had to have mine taken out, thankfully, knock on wood!
I trust you are feeling better today
The Luther and Calvin “quotes,” if genuine — as I personally attempt to provide precise documentation as to source whenever supplying quotes — merely illustrate the fact that those great men believed, correctly by the way, that apart from faith, empiricism and logic will do no good in regard to convincing anyone of the validity of Christianity’s, or the Scripture’s claims.
In regard to Pinnock’s claim/opinion that the inerrantist exalts logic and reason over sound exegesis, I disagree completely. I notice that many opiners employ this device, or something similar to it, in their rebuttals of opposing views, which doesn’t really prove anything, nor does it deal with the point, IMO. Sort of a straw man defense, I reckon.
But, to answer the charge, I, for one, did not come to accept the inerrantist position because of any perceived fundamentalist pressure, nor because of the use of whatever literary/philosophical method (neo-platonism, rationalism, logic, etc.) which may have been observed, nor in order to foist some sort of pseudo-Immaculate-Conception-analogy upon the Word in an attempt to defend the purity of the biblical text — it doesn’t need it.
Rather, I, along with others, came to it as I seek to do with all of that which I have come to believe in: from a deductive analysis of what the Scriptures says — in this case, about itself.
If you would, please allow me to cut and paste what I said awhile back over on the C-Bus-C blog, about Inerrancy. I have taken the liberty to enumerate, as well as edit a bit, my questions so you may answer them more easily, as follows:
—————————————-
(Begin quote from C-Bus-C blog)
“…Did you even bother to carefully read 2 Pet. 1:16-21 that I posted above?
“Or 2 Tim. 3:15-16?
1. “How do you interpret these (above) passages?”
2. “Do you exalt supposedly conflicting scientific/botanical/geological/archaeological data to a place higher than the Scriptures?
3. “(If so,) by what authority do you attribute the “findings” of fallen, unredeemed men to be more valid than the authority of Holy Writ?”:
“I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, FOR YOU HAVE EXALTED ABOVE ALL THINGS (your name and) YOUR WORD.” (Ps. 138:2, NIV) (Emphasis mine)
4. “How do you explain Galatians 3:16, where Paul builds his case to the Galatians — that the N.T. believer is heir to the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant — based on the PLURAL NOUN FORM OF A SINGLE WORD from the O.T. Scriptures?:
“Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” (Gal. 3:16, NASB)
5. “How do you explain John 10:33-34, when, accused by the Jews of blasphemy and being threatened with stoning, Jesus defended Himself by referring to a SINGLE WORD from the O.T. Scriptures?:
“The Jews answered Him, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’”? (Jn. 10:33-34, NASB)
6. “Or the next verse?:
“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (AND THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN….)” (Emphasis mine)
7. “How do you explain Hebrews 1:8 and 2:8, where the author of Hebrews bases his various arguments for Christ’s Deity upon the emphasizing of a series of SINGLE WORDS quoted from the O.T. Scriptures?:
“But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.’” (Heb. 1:8, quoted from Ps. 45:6, NASB)
“’Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet’ For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him.” (Heb. 2:8, quoted from Ps. 8:6, NASB)
8. “How do you explain Hebrews 12:26-28, where the author of Hebrews endorses his interpretation of O.T. prophecy based upon the EXACT WORDING of a phrase from the O.T. Scriptures?:
“And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, ‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.’ AND THIS EXPRESSION, ‘YET ONCE MORE,’ denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, in order that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.” (Heb. 12:26-28 quoting from Hag. 2:6, NASB) (Emphasis mine)
9. “How do you explain Matthew 5:17-18, where Christ endorses the very PUNCTUATION of the O.T. Scriptures?:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER, NOT THE LEAST STROKE OF A PEN, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Mt. 5:17-18, NIV) (Emphasis mine)
10. “Are you being honest with what these Scriptures are saying?”
(End of quote from C-Bus-C blog)
—————————————
AFAIK, no one has had the courage [or perhaps "attention span" would be a more accurate term
] to answer my queries over there, but rather have seemed to prefer, as so many do, and as is so often the case over there when biblical teaching is brought up, to “duck” them within the convenient and anonymous confines of blogdom. I have found that trying to bring the biblical text to bear on whatever is being discussed, of trying to get past the sarcasm and irrelevant remarks posted by the “one-liners” — those who employ the “drive by” method in their cute online rejoinders — of forcing them to get to the crux of what is being discussed, and making them realize the import of what they have just blurted out, and then, to attempt to get them to summon sufficient attention in order to actually defend what they are saying, and then to get them to deal with the (il-?)logical conclusions, consequences, and repercussions of what they are saying/believing, is a very taxing chore. I feel I can relate to what a kindergarten teacher must go through. Ha-ha!
The few over there in C-Bus-C who DO have the mental faculties/emotional inclination to engage in intelligent conversation/debate about important matters like these, often have unsavory agendas they push in nearly every post, which clouds their reason, and jades what they have to say…agendas like bitterness, not letting go of previous hurts, unnecessary personal attacks on other believers — usually leadership, re-hashing of the sins of others while ignoring/minimizing their own, the continual bringing up of petty offences — some from years gone by, disagreements with leadership/IC practices, etc. Which is not to say that what folks are going through isn’t valid, and that some of their points aren’t well taken, but I think many Christians today would rather focus on and remain entrenched in the world of what is largely their own, self-created misery, and remain captive to cynicism, than be released by God’s forgiving love, and be changed by His Word.
But you, Craig, are different…you are a very rare commodity in our modern world: a thinking, thoughtful Christian who actually spends time in the study of God’s Word.
Thus, I would be very interested, if you have the time, and inclination, in hearing how you would interpret/exegete the above passages.
Not quotes from other scholars, which I love employing as well as you do, but this time, I’m curious as to how YOU personally deal with what the text says.
Looking forward to your reply.
Blessings,
joe
Ok….
1.
2 Peter 2.16-21: Um this text seems to establish the authority of prophecy, but to argue that by “prophecy” or “scripture” the text is referring to our Bible, well that is an inductive argument
2 Tim. 3:15-16: Well verse 15 confirms my argument that the purpose of scripture is to point the Christ. Once again you have a probabilistic inductive argument in verse 16 because you have to assume that “All scripture” means the Bible. T.F. Torrance argues that “theopneustos” here in the Greek is interpreted through a Latin framework that gives rise to the feeling of inerrancy.
2. I think that science and scripture have different scopes and methods, although I do think that they overlap. For instance, I have no problem with looking at the Incarnation or the Resurrection of Christ through theories in Quantum Mechanics. But, Genesis 1 is far from a scientific document and to make it one would be reductionistic, it is elevated prose and should not be used as a scientific textbook or timetable.
4. I don’t really understand your point about Galatians.
In fact, your remaining questions don’t really seem to be vital to your argument at all. I don’t have a problem with NT figures quoting the Old Testament. In fact, many times NT figures misquote the Old Testament or even call a scriptural reference “Isaiah” when in fact it also includes another prophet’s words.
Remember that to use the biblical text as evidence for it’s own inerrancy is circular. You must assume that every text you use is already inerrant.
I personally have a high view of the biblical text, but I see Scripture as an event – it happens between the text and the community of interpreters. Interpretation is the most fundamental thing to my view of knowledge.
I understand your concerns about City Bus… but I think that bitterness and criticism are fundamental to its inception and will always direct the conversation. I am guilty too. I am young and feel like I wasted 6 years of my life at The City Church, but I will get over it.
Thanks for the kind words. Biblical studies are not my specialty and I feel like I am looking in from the outside, but I don’t mind the topic!
Shalom
Hello Craig;
I think that you sum up very well where I am at with the comment: “Remember that to use the biblical text as evidence for it’s own inerrancy is circular. You must assume that every text you use is already inerrant.”
You’re absolutely right, to quote the Bible as proof of itself does employ circular reasoning.
I cited those Scriptures to demonstrate the falsity of the claim about how holding to Inerrancy is to somehow EISEGETE the concept into the biblical text. Which it isn’t.
You, me, or anyone else can feel free to believe or not to believe in something the Bible teaches, whether it is the supernatural — a concept too difficult for the empirical mind to swallow, or if there are historical accounts that seem edited, or genealogies/numbers that appear to be skewed, or parallel accounts that are not harmonious, or whatever.
Yes, that is your/my/their right.
And, that is one thing.
But, for a scholar, like so many today, to say “the Bible doesn’t TEACH the Virgin Birth of Christ”, or “the Bible doesn’t TEACH the Resurrection of Christ from the dead,”, or even to say “the Bible does not TEACH its own infallibility,” is totally another thing.
It is a denial of the facts — inasmuch as an honest exegesis/exposition of those above-cited references will inexorably demonstrate — and is inaccurate, at the very least.
And, intellectually dishonest at worst.
Xaris,
joebib
Yes, I agree that we should not fall into Bultmann’s problem and quickly assume that the Bible is full of errant texts that need demythologization. I believe there to be historicity in the narrative texts about the virgin birth of Jesus, his Incarnation, his resurrection, but, of course, I simply disagree on the infallibility of the text. I don’t doubt it’s authority, and neither do I doubt its divine-human authorship, but I see no reason (or evidence), both interior and exterior to the text, for holding a position of textual inerrancy.
So we disagree, but I appreciate this opportunity for conversation – that is what this blog is for (it is not for bitter remarks or manifestos).
Shalom
Important to remember the Early Fathers did not see the Bible inerrant in the same rigid sense we do in Western culture. Our obsession was not theirs.
God Bless
Pastor Jim,
Very good point. We have a lot to learn from the patristics.