Through out most of my Christian life I had embraced verbal inerrancy, however in the last several years I have been reevaluating some of my positions that I have held. Although I had embraced this position it never really sat well with me. Inerrancy for all it’s good intentions is a term that in my opinion has outlived it’s usefulness in the advancement of promoting the authority of the Bible, and it’s trustworthiness. It is a position that is difficult to defend, and further problematic because of the various definitions attributed to it.
I plan to post this as a series, mostly due to time and space so I’ll start with some introductions, move on to background and a bit of historical understanding, review the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), how it’s defined from within, consider other useful terms, and finally a conclusion. Well at least something along those lines.
Inerrancy plainly means “without error, incapable of being wrong”. According to Millard Erickson there are at least four definitions of inerrancy:
1) Absolute inerrancy holds that the Bible, which includes rather detail treatment of matters both scientific and historical, is fully true.
2) Full inerrancy also holds that the Bible is completely true. While the Bible does not primarily aim to give scientific and historical data, such scientific and historical assertions as it does make are fully true.
3) Limited inerrancy also regards the Bible as inerrant and infallible in its salvific doctrinal references. A sharp distinction is drawn, however, between non-empirical, revealed matters on the one hand, and empirical, natural references on the other.
4) Inerrancy of purpose holds that the Bible in errantly accomplishes its purpose. The purpose of the biblical revelation is to bring people into personal fellowship with Christ, not to communicate truths. Millard Erickson, “Christian Theology” p248-249
As you can see inerrancy has many meanings. This is one of the major problems with this position, too many definitions. The term inerrancy has been hijacked to mean whatever a particular group wants it to mean. I believe these various meanings have resulted as an effort to preserve the term in order to remain “evangelical”. One can say “I affirm inerrancy”, but if you do not ask them to clarify what they mean, you may not be affirming the same thing.
Next posting I’ll discuss in details what proponents of inherency mean, some historical background and specifically I will look at Norman L. Geisler since he is a very prolific writer on this matter, and one of the prominent signatures on CSBI.
the archives near Emmaus 
Listening…
Excellent. The term has bothered me for a long time. Can’t wait for some more discussion on this!
This should make for an interesting series.
“The term inerrancy has been hijacked to mean whatever a particular group wants it to mean.”
*Whistles!*Uh Oh Robert. You looking for trouble.
Will, I hope to have some good discussions on this.
Brian, let’s us hope.
Rod, not looking for trouble just stating it the way I perceive to be. With all those definitions, it sounds like they can’t make up their minds as to what it means.
I can’t understand how anyone who spends any quantitative or qualitative time in studying the Bible can honestly still proclaim “inerrancy.” Inspired, sure, but not inerrant. Seems to me that we need another term that honestly assesses an errant Bible but still retain inspiration.
I look forward to your series.
Definitions 1 and 2 seem to make a distinction without a difference. Definitions 3 and 4, whatever their merits may be, are not “definitions” of inerrancy. They employ the word, but do not reflect the meaning. As you yourself said, “Inerrancy plainly means ‘without error, incapable of being wrong.'”
I may be off-base, but in my experience the only people who use the terms “limited inerrancy” and “inerrancy of purpose” are those who travel in circles that have historically affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, but who themselves came to reject the doctrine. Including the word “inerrancy” in the name of their view makes it seem a bit more palatable to their fellowship. My point is not to judge the veracity of such views, but merely to point out that the names given to these views are misleading. After all, one could just as easily label the viewpoint of limited inerrantists as “limited errancy.”
Robert –
I look forward to your thoughts and the interaction here. I, too, have been rethinking my understanding of Scripture and the word inerrancy and have been wanting to do my own series. Hence why I recently bought Peter Enns’s Inerrancy and Inspiration and Peter Rollins’s How (Not) to Speak of God.
I am not sure the Chicago definition is what Scripture teaches about itself. I think we intrinsically connect the word theopneustos to inerrant. I think that is not so helpful. And then we take a few passages like Psalm 12:6; 19:7; and Prov 30:5 and string them together to form a doctrine of inerrancy. I don’t think it works like that.
I heard one person say a few weeks back: Scripture is God-breathed not God-spoken. And I think that is helpful as we think through our doctrine of Scripture.
Again, looking forward to our thoughts.
Jason, and that is part of the problem, and by no means is it my intent to belittle those that hold to this position. I am also working on my term paper that deals in part with this subject so the interaction will be of great value to me. My courses are taken online so I don’t have the opportunity that one gets when they are on campus and are able to have thses sorts of conversations with other students. We do have a school forum and I use that as well.
Scott, I don’t have Peter Enns’s book, I’ll try and add that to my reading list, but if I don’t maybe as this series progresses you can share some of his perspective on this subject. I do plan on putting together a suggested reading list, as well.
Good stuff. I have a problem with all the definitions given by Erickson. Should be kicked out as a test of evangelicalism, whatever that means.
TC, you lost me on “Should be kicked out as a test of evangelicalism”. I chose Erickson because I thought that he gave the best summary and was a good place to start, at least it helped me with the point that I wanted to make.
Robert,
Yeah, I see where I needed to be clearer. I was actually referring to “inerrancy” not Erickson. 😀
TC, ok that makes more sense 😉 I wasn’t sure who or what you were kicking out LOL
>>>…I heard one person say a few weeks back: Scripture is God-breathed not God-spoken. And I think that is helpful as we think through our doctrine of Scripture….
It appears to me that the Paul of Romans and the Paul of 2 Corinthians do not believe the preaching of the gospel to “work” without a preacher, because they believe that the “breath” must “enter into the dead” just as God breathed his own breath into the clay statue of himself in order to animate it. As Jesus, in John, says, “the words I speak unto you are breath.” Look at Paul:
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
2 Cor 3:
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit [breath] of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit [breath]: for the letter killeth, but the spirit [breath] giveth life.
This is a clear allusion to:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Romans and 2 Cor are “breath-centric.”
2 Tim, which does not appear until late 3rd century, was written, in my opinion, to suggest that Paul:
* would be followed by successors (since Jesus did not return in Paul’s lifetime, as he seems to indicate, as do the gospels)…
* said that scripture was a “breath container” capable of making someone wise to salvation;
So, in the post-Timothy world, one is not dependent of a preacher, only on godbreathed words.
Robert –
I hope to begin to dive into the book in early August, and then post a review. But that review might not be until the end of August. And you might be finished with the series by then. 🙂
Pete Enns is the professor that recently got lynched from Westminster Theological Seminary, because he offered an “incarnational” model for looking at scripture, rather than a “divine-writings-from-lightning-bolts-onto-plates-of-gold” model for looking at scripture ;-).
Scott, I’ve heard that Rollins goes off the weird end of postmodernism and adopts some of the bad parts of postmodernism that Christians should be more discerning of, while accepting the other good parts of postmodernism. Just something to bear in mind as you read! =)
Aaron –
Yeah, I think it was an Amazon blurb that made me think Rollins might get off-base a little. But it was Scott Johnson that recommended him to me for consideration. Not saying Scott agreed with everything. But he said I would be interested to read Rollins.
Forgot to add – But, thus far, Peter Enns seems very solid.
Rollins is worth reading as long as you go into his books knowing you need to be discerning.
Looks like this could be a very interesting discussion. Here’s hoping you address the fun does-Paul-trump-Jesus question.
Brother Jimenez,
I hope I am misreading you. I do not look for a fight, and certainly do not want to be pugnacious, but I believe this doctrine is at the core of orthodoxy and I feel compelled to respond. I have posted my response here:
http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2010/08/has-doctrine-of-inerrancy-outlived-its.html
I want to humbly ask you to seriously rethink and pray about your rejection of inerrancy. My response is strongly worded and highly critical of your arguments (not you). Again, I hope I am misreading your position, but it appears you are sawing off the very limb you are sitting on, shooting yourself in the foot, and setting explosive charges on the foundations of your own spiritual house. From my vantage point, at the very least, your reasons for rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy are logically flawed and represent a radical departure from the view of Scripture presented by the Biblical writers. The views you articulated may be in vogue in our postmodern times, but I would submit that they are false from the viewpoint of eternity, the only viewpoint that matters (i.e., God’s viewpoint).
Please tell me if I have created a straw man by misunderstanding your position.
Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton
Hello Derek, I’m not looking for a fight either. I hope that you will be patient with me as I work through this series. I’m personally not comfortable with the term inerrancy and as this series progress I will state to the best of my ability why I am not. For now all I have posted is an introduction for the topic, and have not laid out all of my arguments. But for the record I do believe in it’s inspiration, and trustworthiness.
I would live to have your interaction so long as it remains Christian in tone (irenic) and does not reduce to accusations of not being Christians just because we do not agree in this area. I would highly recommend you read this post by Roger Olson as he does a good job of defining what is evangelicalism: http://www.rogereolson.com/2010/07/29/my-first-foray-into-blogging-what-is-evangelicalism/
I was on vacation and just returned, so I hope to have part two ready this week.
Thank you for stoping by.
Brother Robert,
I read the article. It’s good. I also read the next few posts on Olson’s site. Thanks for the link.
As a Calvinist, I have to say Olson is probably my favorite Arminian! One of my closest friends interviewed him on an internet radio program, and Olson was super! He’s a great writer, too.
I conscientiously try not to guess who is saved and who isn’t. We can definitely discuss inerrancy without getting sidetracked into that quagmire. I anxiously await your thoughts on how the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture can be upheld without reference to inerrancy. It’s new territory for me, I’ve never considered separating them.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek,
thank you for your openness, and even if you don’t agree in the end that’s ok, I totally respect you, and we are still brothers in Christ. I think that having you here for the process will be good, and you can correct me if I misrepresent the position, something I will do my best to properly represent. I appreciate you taking the time to read what Dr. Olson had to say, I have much respect for him and his courage to speak so openly on such matters.
Derek: “I anxiously await your thoughts on how the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture can be upheld without reference to inerrancy.”
I think most people define “inerrancy” as, “without error,” meaning in a kind of “factuality” sense. On this account, inerrancy would mean something like, “The Bible is without error in respect to historiographical and scientific assertions it makes,” or some such thing.
I think the problem with conflating “authority/trustworthiness” and “inerrancy” is that it mixes “truth” with “fact.” But while “facts” are true, nevertheless “truth” is much, much bigger than merely “facts.”
God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent — this could be called “fact.” But God is also said to be “a fortress” and “a strong tower” — this is “true,” but it is not “fact.”
Jesus taught in parables, but he did not teach in historical anecdotes (like a modern-day pastor does). “Facts” are not the chief concern, “truth” is the chief concern. The Bible is 100% true, but that doesn’t necessitate that all of it has to be 100% scientific and historiographical “fact.”
So, back to your original question I cited above, how can the authority and trustworthiness of scripture be upheld without reference to factual inerrancy? Simply by drawing a clear distinction between “truth” and “fact,” and recognizing that scripture isn’t necessarily concerned with “facts” so much as “truth.” (But of course, much of scripture is also concerned with facts, such as the resurrection. But other parts, such as creation in Genesis 1, are less concerned with facts so much as truth.)
Aaron, that’s an excellent explanation. Our modernistic epistemology has gotten us into a world of trouble!
P.S. — I’m Reformed, also ;-).
The Reformed tradition believes in “general revelation” (creation) and “special revelation” (scripture) where the two corroborate each other and don’t contradict. So if God’s general revelation teaches us something such as, “The earth revolves around the sun,” then we have to go back and reinterpret scripture and realize we were interpreting it wrong.
I think the more thoroughly Reformed/Calvinist a person is, the more and more open to non-inerrancy they should be.
Aaron, thanks for you input. I’m trying not to get ahead of myself so I better post part 2 soon, or most you will do it for me 😉
Aaron,
I understand your argument, but I couldn’t disagree more with your conclusions. The Reformed thinking I embrace leads me in the direction of the arguments made by James Anderson here:
http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/i-love-jesus-i-accept-evolution/
My position is that special revelation is always more accurate, more authoritative, more trustworthy, and more factually true than general revelation. If the two seem to contradict, it is because science simply hasn’t discovered enough to empirically arrive at what is revealed in Scripture – or there is a humanistic bias that prevents scientists from interpreting the evidence in a way that harmonizes with the facts of the Bible. By definition, the “facts” and theories of science are changeable and in a constant state of flux, exactly opposite to the eternal and unchanging Word of God. Anderson’s article shows how core Biblical Truth (not just fact) is undermined by a belief in evolution. He also argues that separating “Truth” from “Fact” is not practicable in the real world, when we are dealing simultaneously with Biblical revelation and empirical evidence. I’ll add that I find no reason to question the Biblical account of creation because I find it offers a better interpretation of the scientific evidence currently available than evolution does. I judge evolution not scientifically supportable, so I reject it on both fronts: Biblical and scientific. Even if I were to reject the Biblical view of creation, I wouldn’t embrace evolution as an alternative. It simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
Blessings,
Derek
•sigh• I told myself not to get involved in this conversation — I should’ve trusted myself ;-).
There are important and legitimate responses to your concerns. But alas, I must heed the advice of Saint Augustine, and simply concede that not all debates are fruitful or worthwhile. I must go take my children to the library, instead =). Godspeed!
I agree, there are way too many things to argue about. Happy studies!
As you can see inerrancy has many meanings. This is one of the major problems with this position, too many definitions.
You’ve highlighted the big problem with “inerrancy.” If this was an Orthodox Christian doctrine, we should be able to go read what that was. Well, you can’t because it doesn’t exist. I believe the source for it is Roman Catholic and within the last couple hundred years. Ironic that today Protestants and Evangelicals carry the banner.
I’m referencing the link below. It’s a nasty and long read. If you need a sleeping pill…
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html