Inerrancy? Pt.1
I’ve decided to write a few posts on the question of biblical inerrancy. I made comments on this subject in my posts on propositional revelation and scripture here. And as I think the matter is rather clear, I would like to present the argument summarised in that earlier post in a little more detail. Any comments are most welcome.
- What do I mean by ‘inerrancy’? I found this on the web: ‘D. Feinberg defines inerrancy as, “[T]he view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences” (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1987, p. 142).’. As an example of this sort of thinking, Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible.
- Is biblical inerrancy what Christians have always believed?
a. There is tension in the Fathers. Goldingay summarises, ‘the Fathers seem capable of combining their recognition that scriptural narratives are sometimes unhistorical with specific declarations elsewhere regarding the detailed reliability of them’ (Models for Scripture, 261). Think, for example, of Origen’s ‘gospel harmonising’ tendencies, with his commentary on John 2:12-15 which ‘emphasised that the Gospels contain many a “discrepancy” of this kind, which he declares to be insoluble if we take each Gospel as attempting a historical account’ (ibid, 262). Cf. also his Origen’s comments on Genesis 1.
b. There is tension in Luther. He simultaneously held a very high view of scripture, but was, at the same time, untroubled by contradictions in the text. Think of Luther’s trigger happy attitude to books of the canon. It wasn’t only James that upset him (the ‘epistle of straw’). The impossibility of second repentance in Hebrews, he said, contradicts the gospel ion Paul, and the Revelation to John he criticised for its fantastic character, and lack of emphasis on the central Christian message (cf. Kümmel’s overview in his, The NT: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, 24).
c. The present interpretation of inerrancy as absolutely without error (sometimes adding the ‘escape clause’: in the original Manuscripts) has been heavily shaped by the Scottish philosophy of ‘common sense’ (cf. A. McGrath, Passion for Truth)
d. These few examples go to show that the conservative Christian’s claim that all Scripture is error free is simply what ‘Christians have always believed’ cannot be upheld without significant qualification.
posted by Chris Tilling @ 12:17 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Chris,
Two comments.
"There is tension in Luther. He simultaneously held a very high view of scripture, but was, at the same time, untroubled by contradictions ..."
I'm with Luther on this one. There are two kinds of people who are troubled, the Harold Lindsells and the Bart Ehrmans. Phenomenal contradictions abound every were not just in the biblical text.
"The present interpretation of inerrancy as absolutely without error ... has been heavily shaped by the Scottish philosophy of ‘common sense"
Yes and some of us who have for better or worse come under the influence of I. Kant are not comfortable with "common sense realism."
one question: Who is D. Feinberg? I know of Paul Feinberg and his brother John Feinberg and their father Charles Feinberg but I suspect D. is the middle initial for Paul or John not sure which.
csb
Hi Chris,
The argument for inerrancy is not based on the supposition that all Christians have always believed it. Origen and some of the other Church Fathers were embarrassed by the Bible's inability to match the teaching of Greek philosophy. They tended to allegorise Scriptures that they found difficult on a historical level. Hence the jibe, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Or, "Why should Greek philosophy determine what we believe about the Bible?" Besides Origen had a pretty literalistic approach to exegesis when it came to "if your hand offends you cut it off" - he emasculated himself. How far are you prepared to follow in Origen's footsteps?
It could be argued that the Princeton men who argued so forcefully for inerrancy like Hodge & Warfield were influenced by common sense philosophy. But that is not the main basis for their teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. As far as they were concerned, they were defending the mainstream Christian view of the Bible. The doctrine of inerrancy may have been given sharper focus as a result of the onslaught of Liberal Theology. But the same could be said of the Church's Christology in the wake of Arianism.
Guy Davies
Chris, you may want to check out Millard Erickson's Christian Theology, as it has been an influential textbook in recent years in North American evangelical colleges and seminaries. He presents quite a range of perspectives that use the term "inerrancy." It's been years since I've read it, but I seem to recall Erickson himself coming down in the middle of the spectrum he presents. The fundamentalist perspective would be what I think Erickson calls "absolute inerrancy."
Chris, great idea for a series of posts. Feinberg's definition resembles the "Chicago Statement." Inerrancy, as such, only pertains to the original autographs. This is an important point because as Text Criticism has demonstrated that multiple variants among MSS make it difficult to ascribe "absolute inerrancy" to the text of Scripture that we have today. I would add, however, that what we have today is as close to the originals as we can have and therefore I have no problem using the term inerrancy when refering to the Scriptures today.
Alan,
Isnt being 'as close to the originals as we can have' still falling short of the originals, and hence innerancy?
Personally I do not see the usefulness of the doctrine. How does it serve the Church? Pastorally, some may have a problem with there being 'errors' in the Bible, and may find reassurance in believing that there aren't any. Others may want to be sure that Christianity is true, and so if the Bible says that it is absolutely true without error then they once again find assurance. As for me, my trust and assurance is in God through Jesus Christ and I have no quarms with the Bible, it is what it is, deal with it.
Evangelistically/Apologetically, it is unlikely that anyone who is not a Christian will believe it and hence become a Christian. It may however turn people away, giving the impression that Christianity is a leave your brain at the door scenario. Not that inerrancy is a stupid doctrine, but that it shuts of lines of communication with those who wish to dialogue with Christians over the truthfulness of their faith.
It seems to me that inerrancy builds a wall between non-Christians and Christians, shuts off dialogue, makes us look unthinking, and, when listed as a 'fundamental' within Christian circles, simply becomes a way of stating who is 'in' and who is 'out'.
rant rant rant...
Craig Evans comments are helpful in regards to this topic. See Alan Bandy's post, Craig Evans on Faith Based Scholarship
Hi Clay,
Thanks for your helpful comments, and I agree with you. As for D. Feinberg, I’m really not sure. I found that quote on the net.
Guy, your comments are welcome as I work through this series as I know you see things differently to me here. You write: The argument for inerrancy is not based on the supposition that all Christians have always believed it. No, it is not soley based on this. However, even many critical scholars, along with the conservatives, use the supposed ‘historical position’ of inerrancy as a criterion for its correctness. You yourself did too in your comment on my propositional revelation post.
As for following Origen on all point, of course not. But that is not my point here.
You wrote: It could be argued that the Princeton men who argued so forcefully for inerrancy like Hodge & Warfield were influenced by common sense philosophy. But that is not the main basis for their teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. I wouldn’t claim it was the main basis, but I will insists that a foreign philosophy gave their formulation of the doctrine of inerrancy its flavour, and was a new development in Christian thinking – what has been called the ‘nineteenth century elaboration’.
The doctrine of inerrancy may have been given sharper focus as a result of the onslaught of Liberal Theology.
My point is that it wasn’t merely a sharper focus, but a reinterpretation tat cannot be justified by the texts of Scripture themselves. But more on that in a later post.
Many thanks for your thoughts Guy.
Mike, hi.
Thanks for the book tip, but I seem to remember just this book was voted by somebody as one of the most boring books of all time in my post on that subject a number of days ago!
John, welcome to my blog. I very much like this quote, but I was saving just these words for my last post in this series, so you’ve stolen my thunder somewhat!
Alan, thanks for that. As I develop my argument, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Eddie, you speak from my heart!
Chris,
In my comments on your Fundamentals post, I said that the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture was the generally accepted view of the Church prior to the Enlightenment. I did not suggest that all Christians have always believed it.
I am not a proponent of Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. A) I am Welsh. B) (A) speaks for itself! (The Welsh aren't exactly famed for common sense. Seaweed is one of our national dishes).
For me, inerrancy is the result of the inspiration of Scripture. God is the Lord of history and creation as well as salvation. He is able to reveal his truth accurately and without error. This holds true for all areas of knowledge that are addressed by Scripture. To say only the bits of the Bible that have to do with salvation can be trusted creates all kinds of problems.
For example, was the resurrection of Christ a historical event or a saving event? It was both. Salvation and history are too interdependent for us to separate them.
One further thing, those who reject inerrancy are not free of philosophical bias. We do not approach any Theological issue with Positivist detachment. Both Enlightenment rationalism and postmodern literary theory have led to an abandonment of Biblical inerrancy. The question is, what is the Bible's testimony to itself as the Word of God? Does the Bible teach that the Bible has errors?
Yours,
Guy
Hi Guy,
I said that the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture was the generally accepted view of the Church prior to the Enlightenment
Right, and I’m suggesting that the inerrancy of scripture was not the generally accepted view, not inerrancy as it became to be understood anyway. The nineteenth century elaboration was an error, n ot merely a legitimate response to liberalism.
The Welsh aren't exactly famed for common sense. Seaweed is one of our national dishes).
:-)
For me, inerrancy is the result of the inspiration of Scripture
Exactly at this point I disagree. I believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, but to take the albeit reasonable deductive logic step goes beyond what scripture affirm.
One further thing, those who reject inerrancy are not free of philosophical bias.
I entirely agree, but my point is that in just this point of deductive logic, those supporting inerrancy have adopted a foreign element into their reasoning that is contra scripture.
Does the Bible teach that the Bible has errors?
It depends what you mean by errors, but, yes, I believe the bible a we now have it is crystal clear that there are a number of errors within it, and this is part of its nature. I’ll post on that tomorrow.
Many thanks for your comments Guy.
Chris, I never said Erickson's book was interesting or exciting! Only fairly influential in North American evangelical colleges and seminaries in recent years, which means it may be a way of getting a handle on the ways "inerrancy" is used apart from Feinberg's definition. Alan Bandy has also pointed out the Chicago Statement, which as I understand has recently been promoted by the ETS as the way they wish their use of "inerrancy" to be understood (a development which caused no small uproar among some ETS'ers).
Guy said:
God is the Lord of history and creation as well as salvation. He is able to reveal his truth accurately and without error.
This is true. However, that he is able does not mean that he has. Using a similar argument it would be quite possible to disprove the existence of evil in the world. Wouldn't that be handy? :-)
That's a good point, Byron!
Post a Comment
<< Home