In this post my goal is simply to define what is meant by inerrancy. My intent in this post is not to debate or defend this position, but to fairly and accurately define what it means. I think that if we are going to have any meaningful dialog we need to understand how theologians who hold this position define inerrancy.
Inerrancy at it’s most basic definition simply means “without error”, The first position that Millard Erikson defines is the most common one attached to the term inerrancy. Which basically states that it is “without error in all that it teaches including history and science” (Christian Theology p259). For instance Norman Geisler a strong proponent of inerrancy states the following:
If God cannot err, and the original text was breathed out by God, then it follows that the original text of the Bible is without error. – Systematic Theology VI p240
He goes further to say:
Inspiration is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, who through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors invested the very words of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach or imply (including history and science), and the Bible is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for faith and practice of all believers. – Systematic Theology VI p241
Although Norman Geisler in his book Systematic Theology V1 has a section on the human nature of the bible he reasserts his position by stating “There is one human characteristic the Bible does not have: errors.” – Systematic Theology VI p257
Finally just to get one more quote to assure consistency as to how it is defined, I look no further than to Wayne Grudem who says “inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” Systematic Theology p90
For the next post I would like to review when the term “inerrancy” enter into Christian vocabulary, and hopefully look at how the church has defined the scriptures throughout the centuries. This next post might take me a bit of time to properly research, so I may sneak something in between. I was out on vacation for about two weeks and I really do shut down and enjoy the time off. So I do apologize for the gap between this and the first post.
the archives near Emmaus 
I always get confused in the inerrancy debate. Where are the original manuscripts? Has anyone seen them? I have five years of theological education and still looking for the answer.
Rod, they do have a response for that and I may on their behalf post here, but not tonight I’m tired.
Robert –
Thanks for continuing your series. A few things to note (and sorry the comment will be a little longer). 🙂
1) Difference Between Fact and Truth
As a friend of mine helpfully made me aware, I think we have to determine the difference between the words fact and truth. I would say Scripture is fully true, but might not be error-free in its fact presentations.
The greatest example, of which even inerrantists (is that a word) would agree, is the idea that parables are not fact. They teach truth, no doubt. But they are not factual stories. It is a fact that Jesus told parables. But the parables, in themselves, are not fact. But they are truth.
And I think this is where modern Christians get mixed up. So we must note such a difference when we read in 2 Samuel 7:16 the report of Nathan’s prophecy to David – And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever. And then read what 1 Chronicles 17:14 reports – but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.
From a factual standpoint, one or both could be wrong. But the truth is communicated in both accounts, especially noting the purpose of the author in Samuel-Kings (pre-exile) and the differing purpose of the Chronicler (post-exile). Again, most inerrantists would not argue against this. But there must be notation of a difference between fact and truth. The purpose of Scripture is to fully communicate the truth of God, not to always communicate each detail of fact.
This is why we notice differing accounts of how many angels were at the tomb of Jesus following his resurrection. Or differing accounts of how many demoniacs. Etc, etc. From a factual standpoint, we could argue was there one or two. But that is not the point (again, which most inerrantists would argue). But one has to do with communicating truth, which the Gospel writers do. But they are not sitting around wondering if they got every detailed fact correct. Of course, they are not trying to hide or misconstrue details. But even in their details, they present specific things in a specific way to communicate a specific message that is of utmost import.
And this is why I am ok that the compiler of Genesis used already orally known traditions of the origins of humanity from the ancient near east and crafted it in a way to teach the origins of humanity from a Yahweh perspective, to teach the people of Yahweh His truth. But they were not trying to communicate detailed facts. It was all headed quickly towards Abraham anyways, which was the father of Yahweh’s people.
This is why I believe Grudem’s definition fails to faithfully consider all things that we currently know of the situation of Scripture – inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. Scripture is not ultimately about communicating fact, though it has plenty of them. It is about communicating truth. If we fail to recognise this, we will craft our own faulty definitions.
2) Verbal Plenary
This is why I believe theopneustos does not communicate verbal plenary, in that every single word was chosen by God Himself. It doesn’t allow for the incarnational model of Scripture that Peter Enns puts forth in his helpful book Inspiration and Incarnation. Now this might challenge, at times, our meticulous dissection of each individual Hebrew and Greek word in the old manuscripts. But so let it be. There is no harm in dissecting, for I want to know what the author was trying to communicate. But I am not going to stand up at all times and say, ‘God choose that the word but be right there to communicate something.’
3) Original Manuscripts
Finally, I would also challenge inerrantists to lay back off the whole argument for inerrancy with regards to the original manuscripts. The first apostles didn’t even have them, and they were using a Greek translation of most of Scripture. They didn’t even hold to the ‘original manuscript’ argument. And I can guarantee that we will never have the original manuscripts. But I can guarantee we will continue to have the theopneustos incarnational word of Scripture. And God will make it real and alive to His theopneustos people, the Spirit-indwelt and empowered body of Christ. God was not bothered about maintaining the original manuscripts. He was fine to allow transmission errors throughout history, even factual errors in the ‘originals’. Thus, I think we need to relax on investing so much in the originals, something we don’t have, and most generations did not have, even the inspired NT writers.
Ok, sorry for the long comment. 🙂
Robert,
From all I’ve seen, I think you offer a good survey of the inerrantist position here. More could be said, or course, about the qualifications regarding genre, authorial intent, phenomenological language, acknowledged imprecision, etc. but you have correctly stated the core concept in my opinion. It’s always helpful to define terms.
Regarding the specification of the autographa alone as completely inerrant, this is an important and essential point of the doctrine. Here is an illustration that some may find helpful: one might think of the original documents as words engraved in stone tablets (not literally, this is just an illustration). We no longer have the stone tablets themselves, but we do have many pictures of them. From the photos, we can make out the words that are written on the stones – but none of the photos is perfect or complete. Each one has obscurities where there was a heavy shadow, or where light reflected back and overexposed the text (like a lens flare). These problems are expected in photography. By comparing the various photos taken from different angles, we can arrive at absolute certainty regarding 99% of the text, and we can have a high degree of certainty about 0.99%, while .01% remains permanently obscure (although discovery of additional manuscripts might correct this in the future). The point is, none of the photos perfectly represents the original. At the same time, the photos, taken collectively, have accurately preserved the information (assuming correct textual criticism). Thus we might say the copies, collectively, are practically as inerrant as the originals. If one denies the inerrancy of the originals, he also denies the inerrancy of the copies. If one affirms the inerrancy of the originals, and trusts in the preserving work of the Holy Spirit, he can reasonably affirm the practical inerrancy of the compared copies. But if one tries to argue for the full inerrancy of the copies, he will be forced to choose one copy over another and thereby lose any benefits of textual criticism applied to the whole collection.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek –
The question is – Are the originals inerrant?
From a ‘fact’ standpoint, I don’t know if we can affirm that. But from a truth standpoint, I believe we can. In the end, the Scriptures are theopneustos. And, ladies and gentleman, that is powerful, as 2 Tim 3:17 states the fruit of what it means to be God-breathed. But I might argue the church is also theopneustos.
Scott,
Yes, that is the question. I didn’t interact with your comments above because I want to reserve my thoughts for brother Jimenez’s upcoming posts. But I’ll say that for me there is no way to affirm theopneustos without also affirming full inerrancy of fact and truth within the Scriptures. I’ll develop that further, but not here and now.
For the moment, we’re at least moving the ball forward by defining terms. A wise move on Robert’s part.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek –
Thanks for the comment. Yes, I probably moved forward too quickly and maybe should have reserved my thoughts for later posts by Robert. I look forward to continued interaction in posts to come.
Scott, that’s alright what you have posted so far. I do plan to deal with those issues at a later point. Plus I can use what you already post 😉
Derek, yes I also plan to elaborate more on what they mean, but I thought I should reserve that as part of my interaction/critic with them. If no one really complains about the definitions that I laid out then at least we can all be in agreement, and move forward in this series. That will help us. If other inerrantist want to quote other theologians and add some additional definitions of the term that would certainly be welcomed, but I think I gave a good enough widely excepted definition of the term.
I do appreciate everyone’s tone on this, I almost did not start this series because I really don’t care to fight with anyone, just trying to make sense of certain things. I do realize that somethings in the bible are just paradoxes, but until we have exhausted all possible understandings we should not start there but recognize that we may need to accept that as a possibility.
Derek, there is actually a great article on the “Original Documents and Inerrancy” which I plan to post and reference at some point.
Robert –
You might see if there is anything worth quoting from the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy. It seems to be a common ground statement for inerrantists.
Scott, it’s on the list. Geisler is one of many who signed that document.
If God cannot err, and if the first Adam’s living soul was breathed out by God, then it follows that Adam was, in fact, without error.
Flawless logic.
(I’m just throwing that out there…)
Bill,
Thank you. You are exactly correct. Adam was indeed a perfect and inerrant being when he was created. Very good point.
Blessings,
Derek
ScottL,
I couldn’t resist. I have interacted with some of your initial comments here:
http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2010/08/has-doctrine-of-inerrancy-outlived-its_13.html
Please note that while my argumentation is forceful I am not making an ad hominem (personal) attack against you. I believe your position demolishes essential doctrine, so I’m fairly fierce in my criticism of it. However, I seek respectful interaction, and my hope is that you may be swayed toward a more conservative approach.
I won’t be offended if you attack my arguments as strongly as I have attacked yours. These issues can easily become personal, but I want to strive to remain focused on the validity of the arguments themselves.
Blessings,
Derek
Bill –
I guess there are a few different ways to approach this. 1) We need to understand ancient near eastern literature more than a western-modern approach to understanding how the details all work out in the early chapters of Genesis. 2) When God breathed into Adam, He didn’t create a doctrine, He created a living being. 3) Does being ‘sinless’ unequivocally equate ‘without error’? Could Adam not have stubbed his toe, mis-applied agricultural techniques, as I am thinking he had to learn how to take care of the garden? I am not sure it was downloaded into his brain. He was sinless, but was he ‘without err’ in the sense that you are claiming?
I know I have mentioned the book already, but you guys will really enjoy Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation. He is a solid, conservative theologian. This book really helps understand some of the things I have said.
Derek –
Do know I consider myself conservative in my approach to Scripture. I believe Scripture is God’s word, God-breathed, given by the Holy Spirit. I read it, study it, teach it, preach it, invest my time it, call others to invest their time in it. I love the God-breathed Scriptures. So, it actually feels weird to share some of these thoughts and comments. It makes me sound like the big liberal guy out to deconstruct Scripture. But that is not my role nor desire.
But in a somewhat academic discussion of our approach to Scripture, I do feel that certain evangelical presuppositions of what theopneustos (God-breathed) means and more modern understanding of the word inerrancy does not line up to the modus operandi of the biblical writers of the ancient near east and first century.
But I’ll keep investing my time and energy into God’s word, no doubt about it.
Robert –
Here is a recent article on Al Mohler’s blog that might be of interest to you: http://bit.ly/932EFj.
Here is a relevant quote recently posted at Scot McKnight’s blog, which is quoting OT scholar, Tremper Longman, on the historicity of Adam: http://bit.ly/cARyJl.
This discussion at my friend’s blog, Theology and Culture, might also be of interest to some: http://bit.ly/9YEgDm.
@Scott L,
Aaron’s post was great. I read it yesterday.
Sorry I keep sharing links, but Roger Olson just posted a pertinent article today: http://bit.ly/bODitI.
I am the link man. 🙂
Scott, I love Roger Olson. If you read his books you will obviously see the influence he has had on me. I was going to make an update to my post with a few links to his. Which if I have time today I will.