I want to start by saying that I don’t have a bone to pick with any Christian that chooses to embrace inerrancy. My issue is not necessarily with the idea of inerrancy, it’s that I don’t care for the term. I think that it can be misleading in what the Holy Scripture is and is not. I’m not sure if I will succeed in persuading others although that is not my goal, or making those that opposes my views any lest hostile and understanding, although that would be nice.
I would advise to read the two prior posting before continuing.
Has inerrancy outlived its usefulness Part One & Two
I’m not the first, nor will I be the last that challenges the inerrancy position, so I will quote and reflect on those that have come before me and offer some thoughts of my own. Donald G. Bloesch has written quite extensively on this matter, so he will be my primary source.
One of the first remarks that Bloesch says is:
They did not err in what they proclaimed, but this does not mean that they were faultless in their recording of historical data or in their world view, which is now outdated. Essentials of Evangelical Theology, p65
Here is the first thing that we must come to grip with. I think this is the first mistake of those holding to the inerrant position. Is to explain away these simple mistakes, and by invoking the “Original Autographs” argument, which by the way we don’t have and seems to me that it makes it some sort of fanciful myth in which it denies the very humanity of it’s writers. I think that it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that the Original Autographs were perfect, and it is a pretty remarkable hypothesis considering the fact that the manuscripts we have are extremely reliable and no reason to think they differ from the Original Autographs. As a matter of faith we should reckon what we have as what God intended for us to have, at least that is my opinion.
There are some clear mistakes in the bible such as:
- Numbers 25:9 claims that 24,000 died,
- while 1 Cor. 10:8 claim that 23,000 died
- In 1 Samuel 31:4 Saul commits suicide
- while 2 Samuel 1:9 Saul is killed
- 2 Samuel 10:18 David kills 700 Arameans
- While 1 Chronicles 19:18 says that David killed 7000
- We have different accounts of what was said in the Gospels such as Luke reporting that they cried out “Glory in the highest”, while the other Gospels says they cried out “Hosanna in the highest”. All four Gospels report differently the wording of the inscription above the cross. (See Millard J. Erickson “Christian Theology” p255 for a detailed account of problem texts)
I only cite these to make a simple point, there are mistakes in the bible and thus to say the bible is inerrant is false, at least in the strictest use of the word. Bloesch goes on to say that:
“Calvin, too, upheld biblical infallibility and inerrancy without falling into the delusion that this means that everything that the Bible says must be taken at face value. He felt remarkably free to exercise critical judgment when dealing with the textual problems. He tells us, for example, that Jeremiah’s name somehow crept into Matthew 27:9 “by mistake” and no reference is made to the autographs as a way out of this difficulty…He warned that we must not expect to learn natural science (specifically astronomy) from Genesis 1, which is composed in popular phenomenal language. Calvin was committed to a high view of the Scriptures, even regarding them as the oracles of God, but this did not prevent him from examining the text critically. Essentials of Evangelical Theology, p66
All to often the reformers are constantly be cited as holding on to inerrancy, even though they never used the word. Well that may be true to a degree, but did they in fact believe inerrancy as it is now taught by those cited in my previous post?
What does the bible say about itself? Does it claim to be inerrant as they would have us believe? Or does it claim something else about itself? Where is the proof text that makes these claims? I think that the scriptures clearly affirm that God’s word is truth, and inspired. The reason it is trustworthy is because it is the word of God. A mistake in grammar, or historical inaccuracy, or scientific phenomenal language does not make it any less truthful, or inspired. It does not negate that God was involved in the writing of Holy Scripture. I am personally amazed that one’s faith in Christ can be so easily shaken by the mere admittance that there are some errors in the bible, as if our whole system stands or falls on these.
I believe in inerrancy with the understanding that “The Bible contains a fallible element in the sense that it reflects the cultural limitations of the writers. But it is not mistaken in what it purports to teach, namely, god’s will and purpose for the world” Bloesh EET, p69 However there is no need to use such a word to describe what the Scriptures are “Trustworthy and Inspired”. We are not given much to work with as to how this inspiration came about. Not arguing that we shouldn’t seek to understand the process either. Clark Pinnock says “…all of these move many to tighten up the doctrine of Scripture beyond what is seen in the text and claimed by the text” (The Scripture Principle p85). According to Roger Olson, not even John Calvin attempted “…to explain how divine inspiration worked in the production of Scripture” (Mosaic of Christian Belief)
I think that Howard Marshall sums it very nicely and with that I’ll leave this subject for another day (Biblical Inspiration p44):
The doctrine of inspiration is a declaration that the scriptures have their origin in God; it is not and cannot be an explanation of how God brought them into being.
the archives near Emmaus 
I wrote a blog about this the other day – and I agree with you that the Bible is inerrant in the morality it teaches us and in it’s teaching of how we should relate to God and how He wants to relate to us. But it is not literally inerrant.
Thanks for the post!
Robert,
You might want to read G. K. Beale’s book: The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism, etc.
Yes, because if you read that book it will solve all your problems and answer all your nagging questions… 🙂
One must see both sides certainly! And “Kelly” Beale is about as honest as ya gonna find, whatever his position.
I think the important thing to bear in mind in this discussion is how we conceive of “Revelation” and “Witness.” This seems to be the theme of Calvin (Scripture as ‘spectacles’) and definitely of Barth’s (three-fold form of the ‘Word’) and Torrance’s approach. Viz. that Jesus Christ is God’s ‘revelation’ (cf.Jn.1.18) to us, and that scripture is the divinely given and special ‘witness’ to the ‘eternal Word’ pointing beyond itself to the res reality (cf. Jn.5.39). So person before work (or Jesus before Scripture — or ontology before epistemology in an order of being and knowing).
What I don’t understand, Robert, is how an errant Scripture (for you) does not cause you certain problems. Unless of course you are operating with the kind of “order” on Revelation that I just highlighted. If the Scriptures are the principium or principle epistemological starting point and revelation of God to man, for you, then the errors you note should cause you some pause, since the God that these very Scriptures attest to is said to be unable to lie (that’s universal, it’s not easily parsed into moral and historical dichotomies).
Howard Marshall’s quote is basically unintelligible, what’s that supposed to mean? And how does he know what he is saying to be true? What “revelation” view is he basing his anecdotal assertion on?
Beyond that, the Scriptures you mention (even if trying to maintain a full inerrantist position) are easily accounted for; and only represent, as is popularly asserted, apparent contradictions — there are in fact “reasonable” responses to those “errors” w/o even appealing to the autographs (and I’m not going to even try to detail that here, I’ll just leave this as an assertion).
In order to fully appreciate G. K. Beale’s book, you ought to first read Peter Enns’ “Inspiration and Incarnation.” An while you’re at it, you might as well also read Kenton L. Sparks’ “God’s Word in Human Words” and Scot McKnight’s “The Blue Parakeet.”
Fr. Robert, I’ve read plenty of books and positions regarding this subject but I just wasn’t interested in Beale’s book, read poor reviews on it.
Brian, I have a lot of problems so maybe Ii will get the book 😉
Hey Bobby, you say “since the God that these very Scriptures attest to is said to be unable to lie”, I don’t think that these “errors” in anyway constitute lying so I don’t understand how that conclusion is made. I affirm that the scriptures are true, truthful, inspired, and fully trustworthy, do we need to affirm more than that?
Bobby, forgot to add and “authoritative”
No, Robert, my question is back behind the lying point (forget that for a moment, that’s more of a distraction point . . . I should’ve left that alone); on what basis do you ground and affirm that the Scriptures are true, truthful, inspired and fully trustworthy? I mean you’re just making basic assertions, what do you mean by “true” “truthful” “inspired” and “fully trustworthy?” Again, what is your basic theory of “Revelation?” Do you want to say that Scripture is God’s “revelation” that Jesus is God’s “revelation” both/neither?
If you don’t have a robust view of “revelation”, and at the same time want to affirm what you want to affirm about Scripture, and at the same time affirm errors in the scriptures, and at the same time believe that Scripture is God’s special revelation; then all you’re left with is an unqualified fiedeism wherein “your certainty” about the Scripture’s “truthfulness” is decoupled from anything objective except for your subjective certainty (which ends up in an un-wanted rationalism . . . which I’m confident you don’t want to advocate [pretty confident 😉 ]).
You’re scarin’ me, Robert! 🙂
Robert,
If ya knew or read Beale, he just does’t write poor books, period!
Bobby, I hope you are not going to judge my walk with Christ over this one term? Correct me if I’m wrong but you hold that the original autographs are inerrant, right? But yet you have no way of proving this, right? In the end you affirm exactly what I do, that the scriptures are true, trustworthy, authoritative, and inspired, right? I would even go as far as saying that the bible is perfect in it’s intended purpose. I think the only difference in our position is that I just don’t think that word is all that important, but we both are in agreement that the Bible is the Word of God.
Robert,
To deny God’s Revelation Word as inerrant in the originals, is actually very problematic, at least “theologically” in the doctrine of God! It will come back, only in the negative I am afraid.
Fr. Robert, I open so please enlighten me, how so?
Robert,
My point is to the approach of God’s Word. Do we simply give it the fulness of awe? We simply cannot sit in judgment here! It smacks of a certain kind of scholasticism to my mind.
Robert,
Let me recommend the Catholic Catechism on this aspect, what the Roman Church calls Sacred Scripture. Sometimes both Rome and the Orthodox churches seem to be wiser on this subject.
Robert J,
You’re presuming too much about me. I never argued from the autographs, I’m really more concerned with your view of “revelation,” and how you define it — which you still haven’t. Once we define that, then we can talk about “errors” and such. I’m not judging you, I’m trying to challenge you to provide a fuller definition of what you think “Revelation” is — I don’t think the usual stock on this is all that helpful or even definitional. My point is that what you are saying “ends” you in yourself, in your certainty, based on what? When you speak of “faith” what do you mean? What is faith?
The difference between us, at the moment, is that I am going to ground my view of “Revelation” in the “Eternal Word of God” (cf. Jn.1.1;18), and call scripture ‘Witness’ (which in that sense it ‘becomes’ the Word of God).
Like I said, on the autographs, I’m not even appealing to that; I don’t need to in order to make the point that I am trying to get across to you. You’re really misreading me though, Robert J.; I’m not “Fundy”, and I don’t really want to argue from silence either — text criticism has a lot more going for it than you want to admit, it seems.
We need someone else with another name to comment, this thread has way to many “Roberts” going on, for me 😉 .
Bobby,
I have really said little lol, but I agree, the issue is how we approach “revelation” itself, for here we touch the doctrine of God Himself! And as I have noted the RCC & the Orthodox are usually very spiritual here, at least some of their “greats”!
Bobby, that’s a whole topic different from the point I’m making. Maybe I’ll tackle that on another post. I think that I have affirmed what all before me have affirmed and I like to know why both you and Fr. Robert have an issue with what it is I affirm. I’ll say it again, that I affirm that the bible is “Authoritative, Inspired, Faithful, and Trustworthy”. It is perfect in what it’s purpose is. I’ll say this much, I fully agree with your short statement “…that Jesus Christ is God’s ‘revelation’ (cf.Jn.1.18) to us, and that scripture is the divinely given and special ‘witness’ to the ‘eternal Word’ ”
But neither of you have dealt with any of my questions. Did Paul make an error when he claimed that 23000 died? And if so, then it’s not inerrant, again in the strict sense of the meaning of the word. I’ll repeat that the scriptures are inerrant in what they teach, and it’s purpose. I just don’t like the term inerrant, I think that Trustworthy, True, Inspired, and maybe even infallible are better terms in describing what the scriptures are.
Unrelated, but I’ve read Beale’s book, and it was pretty awful. Perhaps if an editor got their hands on it it would have been better. 😐
The funny thing is that I have a very HIGH view of Scriptures, I believe everything that it claims about God, who he is, who Christ claimed to be, etc. I just don’t like the term inerrancy, I think that it miscommunicates what the scriptures are. I doubt that I’ll convince either of you but as I stated before, it was not my goal to persuade anyone. Although what I do hope is that you will be more open to those of us who have chosen not to embrace this term and at least make an effort to see our perspective. Which it seems that is not the case.
Nick, it was your review that I chose not to buy his book. I didn’t want to say that but since you have now mentioned it I give you full credit 😉
I could affirm inerrancy depending on how it’s defined. The problem is that there’s so many definitions floating around. So in the end I just say ‘trustworthy.’
And I’m glad I could dissuade you! It really was a poorly edited volume (since the first half was comprised of previously written articles which appear basically unaltered). He has some decent things to say about the NT use of the OT but you can look to other writings (e.g., The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? or even his Revelation commentary for his views on that).
Nick, inerrancy having meaning definitions is one of the reasons I had stated in my previous post why I don’t like the term. I with you and much prefer the term “trustworthy”. I even said so in this post that I I can affirm inerrancy, if by that we mean…
And as they say… Great minds think alike. 🙂
pax
Hey Bobby, I went back and reread Millard J. Erickson, and I can say that I agree with, but just as before I still think that term inerrancy is not the best term. He spends page after page defining what the term means, and I agree with his definitions, buts that’s my point so much effort in explanation just to retain a term. I can say that I agree with him without ever using the term inerrancy.
Well Robert J. all I can say is . . . Go Lakers 🙂 ! I’ll catch you next time.
Robert J.,
Let me be a little more cordial in my parting comment (on this thread), than my rather flippant one suggests above (although I take my Lakers seriously 🙂 ); I understand that there is cultural baggage tied to the language of inerrancy, but, for me (with all of the qualifications in place) it remains a helpful moniker — I’m not ready to give it up (for a variety of reasons).
I don’t think anyone would argue that there aren’t “apparent errors” in the text we have today, but I don’t think that’s the point (which is what you’re wanting to highlight, it looks like). When it comes down to it, all of the “errors” (which needs to be defined, obviously) really are rather superficial, from my vantage point (phenomenological language, text families, text critical issues approximation etc). But of course the point of Scripture, again, is more dynamic than typical thought allows for (which is usually associated with the kind of thought that accompanies the language of inerrancy . . . the kind of revelation views that sees Scripture as the fount of revelation epistemologically placing it before the “Word of God” Jesus instead of after by way of order). This is the way I want to see it, but then again, I don’t think because I thake this view of revelation that this necessarily implies that I have to say that there are errors in the Bible. Really the view I’m taking side-steps these kinds of questions altogether (but as an anciliar discussion the issues you raise here are still on-going at some level — even for “Barthians” [which my view is pretty close to], they just assume the Scriptures have errors, because it’s “human” — and this is where I demur).
Bobby –
Can you confirm/prove the last part of your statement, the bolded part?
Fr Robert –
If the originals are so important, why did the NT authors feel a freedom to quote from the Septaugint, and obviously non-inerrant text, since it wasn’t ‘the originals’?
Bobby, I’m not as advanced as you in regards to knowing Barth’s positions, I have a very common understanding of his position, which I don’t have memorized and I would have to go and review 😉 I have not read any of his major works and only own one of his books. I’ll get around to Barth eventually I have a good 40 years left in life, Lord willing. BTW that was Erikson’s “Christian Theology” that I was referring to just to be clear, and I’m going to the Lakers game this Sunday night!
Let me add a few more remarks form his book. Erikson says:
Both statements that I totally agree with. But that is not how Norman Geisler defines inerrancy as I stated in my previous post.
I also do not agree with Erikson’s conclusion that those that abandon inerrancy (unless of course he is referring to how he defines it then of course I would agree, but again that is the main problem too many definitions of what inerrancy means).
Again I have to assume in context that he is reffering to his definition, but I have to tell you, that when I say I don’t like the term inerrancy that is the assumption many make right away. Fr. Robert was already alluding to those conclusions, and in my previous posts those were some of those allegations. I’m not abandining inerrancy in the manner that Erickson defines it, just abandoning the use of the term.
Erikson continues to make his point, he says
Not sure that I think inerrancy is a useful term, thus the title of my blog. But again that is not how Norman Geisler sees it. Who is right Erickson, or Geisler? Which definition of inerrancy do you chose? Do we make up our definition to sutie our sensibilities as to what inerrancy means? When we say that the bible is truthful, or trustworthy, etc we all agree, so why not use these terms instead? Maybe someone much smarter than me can come up with a better term 😉
Nick, Admittedly Beale’s book, here, may not be layed out well, but Beale’s content is always sound.
ScottL, Once God uses a piece for His Word, that quote itself becomes revelation, as in Jude 14-15, and the quote fom 1 Enoch 1:9. But that does not make all of 1 Enoch revelation itself.
As Nick, behind the issue of inerrancy is the whole reality of God’s revelation and epistemology. And we can never also separate God’s ontology, as God is in and yet always beyond the phenomenological.
*Sorry, make that Bobby… in the my last point. I was up half the night, with some hospital chaplain work.
I like Erickson’s definition, Geisler is out there. Having said that, I reject the metaphysics which Erickson works out of.
Yes, the history of inerrancy can be problematic, given it’s “negative” origin; and the positivistic logic it felt constrained to answer. So in the sense that inerrancy is shackled by this stuff, I reject it as well. But I still will use it in it’s denotative sense, the sense that I think Calvin and many before and after would have used it.
Fr Robert –
I think you misunderstood my question. Let me try and rephrase.
If the originals are so important, why did the NT authors feel a freedom to quote from the Greek translation of the text, which are obviously not ‘the originals’ (in Hebrew)?
ScottL,
That’s the Bible they had, but we should note that St. Paul quoted both the Hebrew and the LXX, and often very freely. The point is not transmission so much, but the very voice and authority of God’s word & revelation. But this is now closed with canon.
It is odd how the so-called closed canon talks so much about the New Covenant Spirit that will guide God’s people until the echaton. Very odd.
Not odd at all, if you see the reality of the Apostolic Church.
Brian,
Just a point, but I hardly ever hear you stand on or use the Ecumenical Councils?
Robert,
I am not sure why I would need to do so unless I was discussing the Trinity, Christology, and Pneumatology. Even then I don’t want to plug my ears and go “Yadda, yadda, yadda…ecumenical creeds say…”. I confess them but I don’t feel obligated to always appeal to authority in various discussions.
As far as the “reality of the Apostolic Church” is concerned I don’t see any thing about a closed canon or a neutered Spirit. If the prophets saw the Spirit being poured out on the last days and the Apostles saw those gifts as being evidence of the Spirit working through the church in those last days and those last days have not come to an end then there is no good reason to be a cessationist in my opinion.
Fr Robert –
That’s the Bible they had, but we should note that St. Paul quoted both the Hebrew and the LXX, and often very freely. The point is not transmission so much, but the very voice and authority of God’s word & revelation. But this is now closed with canon.
So why do we invest our doctrine of Scripture, especially inerrancy, in the originals.
Brian,
A 21st century Montanist eh? well good luck with that. I will seek the Catholic & always Reforming Church, with the “Word & Spirit” I pray..!
Btw, my big Son says now, the Rangers in 7! 🙂
Robert,
If the Montanist hold the position that I hold, that most modern charismatics hold, that a third of the global church and growing now hold, then they got a bad rap and I must pat the “Catholic & always Reforming Church” on the back and say, “Sorry, you missed that one.”
I’m going with Giants in 6 or 7.
ScottL, Because the Word is also Incarnate, and still that grand mystery! But always part of that Salvation History of God, Jewish & Gentile or Nations.
Brian, I can already see that you simply do not like the historic catholic Church. But I am a “Churchman”, the often weak & feeble, but always pilgrim Church. 🙂
And Lee will come back, just watch!
Robert,
I think it is a bit unfair to say I “do not like the historic catholic Church” because I am not a cessationist. I don’t think that was one of the concerns of the ecumenical councils. Even if it is the majority opinion throughout history that doesn’t equate to correctness.
But this post is about Robert’s thoughts on inerrancy, so I digress.
Digress please 😉 I’m tired of talking inerrancy, I wasn’t even going to complete my series but I gave my word that I would so I did. LOL
Brian,
I have noted your dirft (of late) from the historical (Reformational/Reformed) Church. And this is not about “cessation” on the gifts, because God is always sovereign & providental in HIS Church. Even the Reformed Church stood on the believe in an inerrant Bible, and that’s again historical. My position almost 90% of time on the blogs, is about proper Church history. Sadly, history just gets lip service most of the time. And especially the grand Church Councils!
Robert J.,
That is one reason I don’t talk about inerrancy much. I affirm it, but I think it is a “Shibboleth” that can often have political motives that are stronger than theological motives at times.
Fr. Robert,
I have made any major changes as of late so I am not sure what “drift” you are noticing.
Fr. Robert, I don’t see a drift in Brian’s theology at least not in any of the core positions. I do enjoy his willingness to ask questions, admit if he thinks he is wrong, and openness to learn from others.
Now me that’s another story 😉
Brian,
This is just my sense, but when we first met on this here blog thing.. you appeared to be somewhat Reformed, but your questions and even some blogs, have seemed far afoot from this theological reality. The only thing that seems to be steadfast is your Pentecostalism. Again, just my observations at least. I know a theological education can be a real challenge to someone’s biblical elements. And again, this is not an attack at all, just a personal observation. And of course I am not without my own convictions, and as you know my own conservative ideology & theology, though I don’t consider that to keep me from thinking fully overall. But that is my base. We all must have our base.
Robert,
Iron sharpens iron! Note our friend Bobby Grow, he always sharpens our minds & desire! 🙂
Robert,
Btw, let me share this link by Meredith Kline on Creation with you, since you wanted to change gears maybe. But it is just excellent!
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html
We do all have our base, I agree.
Brian,
Can you see mine?
Robert,
Usually, especially when you talk about being catholic Reformed and you note you influences.
Brian,
Yes, I like to think I am somewhat of an open book! lol I try to express where I am coming from and where I have been. Too often many conservative type Christians don’t admit this.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say not only does the Bible have factual errors (a few of which Robert pointed out), it has moral errors (see much of the OT) and is inconsistent in its handling of almost every important theological topic. Nevertheless, seeing how God’s people have grappled with these questions over the centuries still makes it a very interesting and useful book.
I think we need to discard inerrancy *and* stop trying to limit what that word means. God is not going to be pissed off at you for applying your critical reason to the Bible.
Paul, not sure what you mean by “…inconsistent in its handling of almost every important theological”, but a flat statement like that I would have to disagree. Maybe you can write post on it and invite us to comment on it.
Robert, I don’t have a blog or anywhere in particular where I can proclaim my theological views and opinions for discussion or criticism. However, the more I learn, the more it seems like the Bible’s writers took differing, incompatible approaches to almost every topic of note, from the divinity of Jesus to the method of salvation, the means of the atonement, life after death, baptism, the nature of God, etc. To try to harmonize these is to lose their essence, resulting in complicated theories that don’t actually reflect the views of any biblical author.
Surely if these things were spelled out clearly and unanimously, we wouldn’t have a thousand different denominations divided by incompatible doctrines, yet all (well, mostly) based on the Bible, so my blanket statement is apparent in practice even if it is debatable in theory.
I think that’s a good thing. The world has changed and Christianity needs to change too in some respects. Ditching errancy is a good first step to taking an open and objective view of the Bible. We don’t have anything to lose, since if the Bible truly were inerrant and infallible, or even just 100% inspired, closer and more critical scrutiny should serve to amplify that fact. (But I think the result would instead be a rethinking of Christianity and a repositioning of its focus back on Christ.)
Paul, just because I don’t care for the term “inerrant” doesn’t mean I don’t think or believe that it’s not “inspired”. I fully believe that the bible is inspired by God. You can call it an act of faith on my behalf, but that is what it proclaims of itself. Also, I am comfortable with this statement quoted above by Millard J. Erickson “Inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings…While detailed scientific descriptions or mathematically exact statements are not possible, inerrancy means that the Bible, when judged by the usage of it’s time, teaches the truth without any affirmation of error” My issue is that when the term inerrancy is used, is that it does imply “detailed scientific descriptions or mathematically exact”, but I am in agreement that the bible is fully truthful, and trustworthy.
I do agree that Christianity needs to be culturally relevant, but I don’t agree that the Body of Christ is as divided as you make it out to be. All embrace the main core doctrines, at least the most important ones, the Trinity, Christ is both human & God, his life, death, and resurrection, and that he has atoned for our sins and is the only way to God the Father. Sure there are factions within, but none part from these teachings. Anything outside of these beliefs are considered cults.
What school are you studying at, or what books are you reading to help you along?
Here’s my response . . .
http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2010/10/has-doctrine-of-inerrancy-outlived-its.html
Ha! I thought about reading that response but the giant NO! at the beginning only made me giggle and hit the back space. Seriously, why all the theatrics? Why not just respond to Robert’s post?
Brian,
Did I miss something.. Did he not just make a response to Robert on “his” blog? That you won’t read fully?
Robert,
Go to his blog. He is welcome to make a response, but it looks like something from 1990’s Geocities. My eyes can’t handle all the flair.
If he removed all the theatrics I’ll think about reading it. Otherwise it is just hype.
My eyes can’t handle dark backgrounds and light letters but thankfully Firefox has ways around that. I will say that a response that lengthy deserves to be posted on the responder’s blog and not in the combox of the post to which it’s responding.
@Nick: I appreciate that he commented there as well. How does Firefox help? I am using Firefox but I don’t know of that feature. I still need to giant NO! and other distractions to be removed or I get too distracted and bail on the post.
Brian,
Okay, maybe the big “NO” was a little too much. I do back it up with some arguments. Like Robert, I’m getting tired of arguing about inerrancy. But I think it’s important (essential, actually), and I did promise to respond to his series, and he even encouraged me to track with him.
The issues Robert brings up require detailed argumentation, so I opted to post my responses at my site rather than fill up the combox with them. Plus, on my own blog I can use nifty graphics to help illustrate the point. 🙂
BTW – Near Emmaus has been a good way for me to stay tuned in to certain issues. Even though I disagree with you guys on most of the things you write about, I still enjoy reading and thinking about these things with you. And I don’t mind if anyone attacks my position as strongly as I have attacked theirs. In fact I prefer it. This is one way we gain understanding and test the strength of our positions.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek,
The big “NO” just comes across as trying to yell louder than Robert talked. I’d like to read your perspective but I want to begin knowing it is substance for substance.
Brian,
Always the content to the words and argument!
Hello Derek my fellow Christian Brother!
(I had responded on your blog, but it said that my response was too long so here it is)
I have a question that I failed to grasp from your post. Do you believe that only the Original Autographs were inerrant? Also I am unclear on your position on this matter. It seems that you believe in Divine Dictation at least that was implied but please clarify.
By the way I never read any book by Dr. Peter Enns. And just so that you know I totally agree with you that the Bible does not contain any “falsehood, or impurities”, I still refer to it as the “Holy Bible”. Although you linked to my post, and I do thank you for that at least that will allow your readers an opportunity to read all of the comments, which I hope they do. But you failed to at least quote some of my later clarifications. After all, my post was presented as a question? It would have been nice if you presented some clear reasons why we should retain it and the value that it presents. I was hoping for more of that sort of dialog, and not the highly charged emotions, but no really presented any clear views why the term still offers value and why we should continue using it. I’ll take some blame for that, for not making that more clear in my post, live and learn.
I quoted Millard Erikson – “Christian Theology”, and I think it worth quoting here in the event that your readers never make it to my post.
“Inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings… While detailed scientific descriptions or mathematically exact statements are not possible, inerrancy means that the Bible, when judged by the usage of it’s time, teaches the truth without any affirmation of error.p246-247″
I am in full agreement with that statement. It seems as if you are just picking and choosing what you wish to quote and respond to, or I have failed to communicate and for that I do apologize. My main thing is that I don’t care for the term inerrancy. It means too many things to different groups of Christians. It’s not like the term Trinity, where it only means one thing to all Christians. I just think that maybe a better term could be used to describe what the bible is, Truthful, Inspired, Trustworthy, Flawless and Impure. I don’t know if one term is sufficient to describe what the bible is? I’m asking no attacks please 😉
I would appreciate your response to the above questions on your position on inerrancy so that I better understand in context where you are writing from. I won’t be responding any further not for any particular reason, other than in the end I’m done with the subject for now and can’t devote any further time (OK well i might if I can keep it to a line or two). For now I will consider, ponder and pray on your post. You should take some time and read my most recent post titled “At Least Hear Me Out”.
God bless my brother, I love your passion.
Respectfully yours in Christ
Derek, this was so hilarious I can’t stop laughing! “…Even though I disagree with you guys on most of the things you write about…” Glad to see you have a sense of humor, even though I know you mean it 😉
You should know that Brian, JohnDave, and myself really love the Lord, and do hold a high view of the Scriptures. There is nothing in our core belief system that would put us outside of Historical Christianity (not that I personally care if others reject us, I’m to old to be trying to win a popularity contest). Sure we have a lot of questions, and we love to think out loud. But that’s how we roll around here 😉
Robert,
I wish I had a case lot of the book, by Richard Muller: The Unaccommodated Calvin, Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford, 2000). I would send it to a few bloggers I know! 🙂
Muller covers much of this mental ground and material as it effected Calvin. His biblical perspectives, his intention and method, his impact of humanist philolgy and rhetoric, and also patristics, etc. His chapter on Calvin’s, ‘Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin.’ I know this does not directly get into inerrancy, but it does show how Calvin handled the Word of God. Simply a must read for the serious Reformed and Calvinist student, pastor, etc.
Robert,
Thank you for your response and clarifications. I did read your recent post titled “At Least Hear Me Out,” and I thought it was well written and helpful.
I recall now, you did mention in a comment somewhere that you hadn’t read Peter Enns’ book. I apologize for the mistake and I have made a correction in the post.
I don’t believe I have attacked your character in any sense. I did say you presented poor arguments and drew wrong conclusions (as, admittedly, all of us are prone to do), and I don’t think you studied sufficiently to launch a realistic challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy. But all of us – even the highest level scholars – are still learning, and presenting our thoughts for discussion is part of the process. I’ve always found my harshest critics – even the ones who launched personal attacks – have ultimately helped me to strengthen, clarify or change my arguments for the better.
To answer your questions:
Yes, I do believe that only the original manuscripts were completely inerrant. Later copies would be “potentially” inerrant, but the existence of copyist errors and emendations cannot be denied. I stand firm in the conviction that it is essential that we view inspiration as an infallible and inerrant process involving God’s sovereignty and man’s cooperation, in such a way that the result can rightly be called “divinely authored.”
No, I definitely don’t believe that the mechanical approach to inspiration known as “divine dictation” was the normal means God used (though he seems to have used it in certain cases). I believe God so influenced the Biblical writers that they infallibly wrote the things He wanted them to write – but in many cases they may not have realized what was happening. I believe the Holy Spirit prevented error from entering the text as they wrote.
I find it confusing that you affirm “no falsehoods” in Scripture. You presented several contradictions and called them “mistakes” in your argument against inerrancy. What would those contradictory statements be, if not falsehoods? Maybe I am misreading you. In any case, I do encourage readers to visit your site and read the comments and interactions for themselves. Even the part where Brian insulted the look of my blog! Ha ha ha. My blog takes that stuff personally!
I am convinced there is much more at stake here than most of us young guys realize. Our predecessors J.I. Packer, J. Gresham Machen and others understood these issues much better and took unyielding stands against the decay of Biblical authority. I’m with those guys on this one.
Blessings,
Derek Ashton
Gee you guys can make me feel like such an old man! I am at 61, I guess to you? lol , just turned it on the 24th. Robert, wish I was still in my 40’s. And Derek, Packer’s wife and my mother were good friends, though Pack is still with us, mother is with the Lord. It is good for this old man to chat with all you guys…thanks again!
And Brian, still the Rangers in 7! 🙂
Derek, in many ways we agree on the same thing, I just don’t care for the word inerrant. In regards to mistakes or no falsehood, I don’t see either of those terms as lying. Lying implies intentional deception, which the Bible is not. So I have no issues with declaring that the Bible is Inspired, Truthful, and Trustworthy, because it is.
If we were to remove the Original Autographs theory for a moment we actually acknowledge the same thing. Right? We both recognize that the current set of manuscripts that we have do in fact have some mistakes (minor as they are), and we both recognize that they don’t in anyway detract or take away from any core Christian doctrine, right? So all of this just to ask is “inerrancy” the best term to use to describe the Bible that we have today?
How those minor mistakes got there we will never really know, unless some new manuscripts are discovered. For now we will have to formulate our theories as to how and why they are there, and it’s really in our theories where we disagree. I respect yours, I said that from the very beginning I have no bone to pick. Hey if we find manuscripts that are older than what we have now and they are inerrant, I would be the first to admit your theory was correct, and immediately change my position.
Fr. Robert you are old 😉 that’s I why I respect your wisdom you earned it. That is why I treat you different than the other bloggers my daddy taught me right 😉
Brian: For pages that are hard on the eyes I just go up to the toolbar, select “View,” then I select “Page Style,” and set it to “No Style.” That’ll give you plain black text on a plain white background, and if it’s not big enough for you then you can always hit “ctrl +” to enlarge it.
Robert,
Thanks mate, though wisdom is not just age, but also the grace of God itself. God has been very good to me, even thru the rough times God has blessed me. Btw, I think my 40’s were my best years mentally. But having both of son’s born in my 40’s, was both a blessing and now a learning curve! Though people tell me I am young minded for my early 60’s. Indeed so much is our attitude, but mine can be rather cranky at times, oh yeah..lol.
But I really like your “spirit”! 🙂
Robert, thanks for taking the time to respond.
To really debate whether the Bible is “inspired”, I would need a more rigorous definition of “inspired” to go by. I think it was inspired in a broad sense, but still written by humans using human ideas.
That’s fine, but I don’t think “inerrancy” can be stretched to cover major historical inaccuracies, say, or prophecies that fail to come true. The same goes for moral inaccuracies (condoning genocide, rape, etc.).
I don’t even have student credentials, let alone academic ones. I’m merely a layperson who reads lots of blogs on the subject. I’m also reading some of NT Wright’s works and learning Ancient Greek on my own on the side.
. . . I’m merely a layperson who reads lots of blogs on the subject. . . .
That explains it then 😉 .
The “lots of blogs” part.
Almost fulll Pelagian perhaps?
I find the terms “reliable and authoritative” more biblically accurate and easily understood than “infallible and inerrant.” These terms have served me well and have saved those i disciple the “crisis of faith” that often plagies those that understand inerrancy in the sense that is commonly understood nowadays.
I mean, was there 1 demoniac or 2? Not sure. But im convinced whether there was 1 or 2 Jesus delivered them from bondage!
Gbu
Let me make a note on my above comment. After reading all the comments that have been made on robert’s original post. I realize u guys r comung from a scholastic viewpoint for the most part. U guys mention authors i hav never heard of.
My conclusions come from a more practical (not that practical is better). This is why my comment might seem so “simple and naive”. But thru limiting my terminology and understanding of the nature of the bible to what the bible proclaims about itself i hav found that the disciples that are made are less prone to confusion and argumentativness than the average seminary student. At the same time these disciples tend to show their “high view of scriptures” by their committed obedience and dependance on it.
Anyway, i work mainly with uneducated people who wudnt understand the scholastic arguments mentioned above. So maybe my field of labor has given me an excuse for not seeking to understand whether my views are barthian, reformed, catholic or otherwise. I can defend them biblically and with simple logic (which are the only tools useful in my field). And further proof can be added by the fruit my views hav born in the lives of simple and obedient disciples.
Gbu
Chris, it’s about time you visit! You have been doing missionary work for too long, take a sabbatical and read Barth so that you too can speak in an esoteric language that is sure to impress the Indonesians 😉
I heard Eddie is visiting with you next month, take him surfing he would love that.
Regarding logic, many times God’s logic is very different from ours. I came to the view of innerancy the same way Chris came to his conclusion and I am a college dropout without even any Sunday school training unfortunately. Recently I’ve come to know some of those fancy terms better and in looking at the other side of the argument, mine was only strengthened. I’ve also found many tenets of the Reformed faith that I hold to as illogical from a human, and especially democratic/western perspective, especially when I first read about it when I was Arminian!
One other thing I was thinking about–if we don’t have the original autographs, why is it assumed that strengthens the view of errancy? Isn’t there a possibility they were innerant? I realize that’s not a good area to debate from, because each side uses that as part of their position and we may be arguing from silence in a sense.
Regarding the small mistakes there are in the manuscripts we have, I believe that’s where textual criticism comes in and has cleared most of those things up. But that’s the least area of knowledge from my standpoint for sure.
I wasn’t going to comment on this but on Facebook Robert asked us what we thought so I’m just being submissive.
Jeff
Robert,
I cudnt bring eddie to surfers paradise wthout hooking him up! He wil surf!
Words out of my mouth. You have no idea how encouraging this post is to me! I have had many a conversation about inerrancy and what it literally means and what it doesn’t literally mean and they have oftentimes left me frustrated with the religious side of Christianity. It seems to be as you have said, that we’re so wrapped up with this one doctrine that if it falls away, then the whole existence of God falls away, too. And that’s just not the case.
A believing professor of mine here at the University of Oregon once told me that the Bible is a second testament to the First Testament. Or, in other words; the Bible points to Jesus. Is it perfect in and of itself? Probably not. But was Jesus? I believe so. And that’s where our faith needs to hinge upon; not some doctrine made by mere mortals here on earth (and not so long ago at that).
I’ve written a lot about inerrancy; nothing with much research, only a more philosophical/logical approach to the issue. I’ve mainly discussed what matters most to the faith of Christianity and rarely is it ever inerrancy. But the discussion of inerrancy is, as you’ve commented, exhausting. It is so prominent, so deeply ingrained in our theology that to even raise a question over the issue draws one’s faith in Jesus into question. In many of my friends’ minds, I’m not considered to be a true believer because I don’t believe in inerrancy. But, as I tend to argue; the early church didn’t believe inerrancy either. Instead, they believed in Jesus.
Thanks for taking the time to write about inerrancy. It’s exhausting, but believe me, it needs to happen more and more. Hope you are well!
I’m a buddy of Jeremy (who posted before me) and he led me to this post.
In short, thank you. I have been telling people this for a few years now looking more into these doctrines.
Faith is in Christ alone, and in Him alone are we to put our trust for our salvation.
I look forward to reading more of your stuff. Have a good day!