I have wanted to give further attention to the doctrine of inerrancy for some time now. This morning I sent out a short questionnaire to a handful of people asking if they would respond and if they’d be willing to allow their responses to be shared on this blog. I hope to gain a better understanding of the doctrine, especially because it seems quite nuanced. There are many people who won’t use the word “inerrancy” but who have a doctrine of Scripture that sounds like it could fit. There are others who use the word, but it comes with this or that caveat that others may declare invalid. I don’t expect everyone I wrote to response and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few decline because it is a contentious subject.
Personally, I have struggled with the word over the years not because I find the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy convincing. I think it tries too hard to squeeze Scripture into a modernist framework. Rather, I have found Scripture to be liturgically or sacramentally trustworthy. As with the Eucharist meal it is something limited that provides access to things eternal. I found comfort in the words of the Roman Catholic theologian Scott Hahn when he said that before Scripture was “a document it was a sacrament.” Scripture is a place where Christ meets his people. Yet I know there is more to Scripture and its traditional role in the church. For Christians it is the place where doctrine and practice is established. For those traditions that give less respect to tradition there is even more at stake.
I don’t expect Scripture to be a textbook on science, or economics, or the like. I know that there are those like Kevin J. Vanhoozer who defend the doctrine of inerrancy, but it isn’t wooden like some others. Then there are those who find Scripture utterly reliable like N.T. Wright and Craig A. Evans, but they avoid using the word inerrancy. When we discuss this subject are we saying the same thing?
I want to post the questions I sent in my message here on the blog for readers to answer. It would be good to hear from you then see what is said by those I wrote. Maybe from this discussion we’ll all gain a better understanding of a word we either accept or reject as an accurate description of the doctrine of Scripture. We can come to understand what others mean when they use this seemingly very flexible word. Let me know your thoughts on these questions:
(1) Do you use the word “inerrancy” to describe your understanding of Scripture? Why or why not? (If not, can you explain your “doctrine of Scripture?”)
(2) If you were to provide a brief definition of the doctrine of inerrancy what would it include?
(3) Can there be a doctrine of inerrancy divorced from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? If so, what are the “practical” consequences? If not, why?
(4) How does your doctrine of Scripture impact your hermeneutics? Can you use Genesis 1-11 as a case study/example?
the archives near Emmaus 
I just started reviewing Kenton Sparks’ book, God’s Word in Human Words. It is excellent, along with Pete Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation. But in my part 1 review, in this post, you might find some interesting thoughts, of which I tend to agree with.
I thought Inspiration and Incarnation was great. I was quite surprised that it resulted in so much backlash. I want to read Spark’s book as well.
Since you asked, here we go:
1. I do not affirm inerrancy. I affirm that all scripture is inspired (or “God-breathed”). I neither affirm nor deny that scripture is inerrant.
2. Per my understanding, if a document is inerrant, it is without error in all it affirms.
3. Yes, inerrancy can easily be separated from the Chicago Statement. For example, the Chicago Statement asserts teleology (that God “has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ…”) and the necessity of acceptance (“the authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded”). One can accept inerrancy without affirming these, or many other, elements of the statement.
4. For Genesis 1-11, every cogent interpretation under inerrancy is also a cogent interpretation under inspiration. However, there exist interpretations under inspiration (certain ahistorical approaches, for example) that are not cogent under inerrancy. Thus, by affirming inspiration but neither affirming nor denying inerrancy, I allow that all inerrancy-compatible interpretation may be correct, and yet also deny that one need accept them.
Thoughts?
Eluros
What would you say is the major difference between affirming “inspiration” and “inerrancy?”
Would you say that for someone to use the word “inerrant” they would have to affirm the hyper-literalness of the years people lived, the flood, and the historicity of Adam and Eve as the parents of all humanity while those who affirm inspiration could see it as a mytho-theological prologue to the story of Abraham or something akin?
(1) I think inerrancy is probably the wrong kind of claim to make about the kind of thing Scripture is. For example, do we need to insist that Jesus said “take up your cross and follow me” twice two days apart so that the Transfiguration could happen both six days (Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2) and eight days (Luke 9:28) later? This seems like a waste of time. Scripture was declared to be so by the community of faith, so I try to always think about Scripture in relation to the community of faith (whether this be Israel or the church). My doctrine of Scripture is in flux, but I assume that God was involved in its production, and that I can trust it to shape the community of faith as well as it needs to when it is read and applied faithfully and in cooperation with the Holy Spirit.
(2) There are multiple definitions out there. I associate the term inerrancy with the notion that every word of Scripture (in the autographs) is perfect and God-ordained. In some cases, inerrancy might be extended to the preservation of the tradition, too (e.g. KJV is the inerrant English version).
(3) I don’t see why there couldn’t. I don’t know anything about the Chicago Statement, but why should it get to say definitively what inerrancy means?
(4) As above, I am thinking in terms of what is communicated to the community of faith. I’m less interested in whether the WHOLE world was actually flooded in the days of Noah, and whether all humans could be seen as genetically descended from Noah, and more interested in what this says about God and about God’s relation to the faithful. In cases where a story has an obvious precedent (e.g. the widespread existence of flood stories in ANE cultures), I am interested in how the biblical version would bring something unexpected or unique to the table, and how that might communicate something about Israel’s God over against the gods of other cultures. That said, I do prefer to think of events like the flood or the fall as describing real occurrences in history rather than as myths, since they are included in a metanarrative and are to be understood as part of our story. I’m actually not sure how much I do or don’t care about whether something like the Tower of Babel actually happened, but I do care about reading it as history rather than a myth that applies to each generation or something like that.
Brian –
My review, parts 1 and 2, will give some good quotes to chew on for people. I think Sparks’ chapter one, which is more about epistemological approaches, was great. That’s what my first post looked at all by itself. The second post will look at the rest of the book. But that first post has some great quotes, especially on the concept of inerrancy.
Brian,
Per my very limited understanding, to affirm inspiration is to affirm that the authors of scripture were supernaturally guided by God (or the Holy Spirit, et cetera) in the composition of the text. Presumably, this does not preclude the possibility of an author making an error or of God intending an error to be present. To affirm inerrancy, however, usually affirms inspiriation, but additionally affirms that there are no errors to be foudn in the text.
I’m not confident that inerrancy precludes all mytho-theological constructions of Genesis 1-11, because it’s hypothetically possible that it was intended to be read that way by the author(s) (and thus not an error). If the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 tried to convey in the text that the story was not historical fact, an ahistorical approach is compatible with inerrancy (similar to how inerrantists allow Proverbs to contain general principles rather than necessary axioms). However, if there exists a situation where the authors of scripture were mistaken or contradict each other, inerrancy would seem to fail. For example, an inerrantist must deny the following conjunction: {the possibility of creation being understood by the original author(s) of Genesis as a literal, historical 7-day act} and {that such an act did not occur}. If macro-evolution is true, the inerrantist must deny certain traditionally held approaches to scripture. Those doors are still left open for the inspirationist.
At least, if I understand correctly. 🙂
Bill
I agree that it is a waste of time to try to tie together all the loose ends, especially when dealing with the Synoptics or the differences between I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles. I wonder how many people who use the word “inerrant” feel that this must be done. I am sure the CSBE types do, but do they represent all of those who use the word?
Your definition does seem to be the most familiar. Your fourth points is how I find myself reading Scripture as well, seeking to hear the theological voice of the text, or how Israel talked about their God in relation to the world around them.
Eluros
That seems to be an accurate understanding of the differences between inspiration and inerrancy as I understand it as well. One thing that stands out–and I don’t know how this functions within the paradigm of inerrancy–is whether or not the authorial intent is essential to the “meaning.” Could it be that the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended for it to be a historical account, but the Spirit did not? Like some of our Orthodox siblings who find Scripture to be an unfolding text that may say more than the authors intended could Genesis 1-11 say something more than what the author(s) wanted to convey with their “historical” account? If so, could someone call that message “inerrant?”
In other words, I wonder how close the historical-grammatical hermeneutic is tied to the formation of the doctrine of inerrancy and whether or not there are evangelicals, Orthodox, or Catholics who would say Scripture is “inerrant” but who do not approach Scripture through the historical-grammatical lens primarily.
Brian, on whether inerrancy always means the divine ordination of the words … I’m realizing that people don’t always take articles of faith super seriously, especially around Scripture. There are articles of faith printed on pamphlets in the lobby of my (Vineyard) church that say Scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts, but I don’t think my pastors would actually affirm this, especially if I pressed them on things like JEDP. The Fuller statement of faith calls Scripture “the one infallible rule of faith,” and while I was there I asked a few Scripture professors to define what they affirm when they say Scripture is infallible. The initial reaction of both was “hmmm welllllllllllll……{long contemplative pause}…” Joel Green ended up saying something like #1 above, and Marianne Thompson ended up saying that she actually didn’t think Scripture was the one rule of faith, but rather that interpretation of Scripture needs to be guided by a rule of faith. The sense I got was that the biblical studies folks have a hard time (just as I do) actually defining their doctrine of Scripture, and that folks in, say, systematic theology tend to accept the statement without much thought. So, I don’t think inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration always has to mean one particular thing. Actually, I’d propose inerrancy is mostly something people say until they are forced to think it through, and then they realize it’s hard to describe Scripture in any concrete doctrinal way. CSBE would seem to be a bit of an anomaly in this respect.
It is interesting to see how this same problem trickles down into discussions on “infallibility” as well. I agree that this is difficult for confessional biblical scholars. It is very difficult for those seeking to do good historical work in the academy to gain traction using words like “inerrancy” and “infallibility” in these discussions. While everyone has presuppositions these words can make it hard for others to take one seriously. Of course, some Christians would say we shouldn’t care about what others think….and on and on we go!
Well, I had in mind more that once you think through the “data” (MS, historical, theological, etc) for a while, it’s hard to see how Scripture could be called inerrant without either a major leap of faith or major caveats and qualifications. As soon as I try to make a claim about Scripture, I realize that there are several reasons that claim doesn’t seem to quite hold up, or at least reasons why I am not certain. However, when someone doesn’t have to think through the data as thoroughly, it’s easier to make confessions about inerrancy and the like.
Brian,
You note that a key question “is whether or not the authorial intent is essential to the “meaning.” Could it be that the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended for it to be a historical account, but the Spirit did not?”
I’ll warn you that this’ll be a bit contentious. I would respond that, regardless of whether authorial intent is essential to the meaning, inerrancy requires the authors to have access to the meaning. If inerrancy simply referred to whether the Spirit knew the meaning, it would not only be noncontroversial, but circular. As far as I’m aware, no genuinely Christian camp would argue that the Spirit doesn’t know the truth about and behind scripture; even heretical camps that deny the authority of scripture would say that the Spirit/God knows the truth about it. No one would posit that God/the Spirit makes errors/mistakes. The question posed by the inerrancy discussion cannot be reduced to a question of meaning per the Spirit, because it is uncontroversial that the Spirit does not make mistakes. Rather, the question is whether the human authors made mistakes and whether the text as it stands can contain errors.
The question of inerrancy is tied up with the question of authorship. If the Spirit literally wrote the texts (as some, who hold that Christ and the Bible are identical, argue– it’s a weird argument based around the idea of the “Word”) and thus is the author, and the Spirit doesn’t make mistakes, inerrancy is posited. However, most people think that humans– not God himself– wrote the Bible. The question then becomes whether human authors potentially made mistakes. If there’s even potential for mistakes, I’d argue that inerrancy (which states that there are necessarily no mistakes) fails. If there is no potential for mistakes, despite human authorship, inerrancy succeeds.
Any thoughts?
Bill
Agreed, it is a difficult word to use once those subjects have been studied.
Eluros
Even if we don’t move it too deep into Pneumatology there is a sense in which all documents take on a meaning of their own. I don’t mean to ignore the authorial intent, but I think many interpretations postulated under inerrancy are unlikely if we hold to a strict view of authorial intent. While I like a lot of what Walton says about Genesis 1, I wonder if the author split material and functional creations like he does or if the “literalness” of the six days was something assumed. I guess I am trying to figure out what makes Scripture a place where we can trust God to meet us in a sacramental sense while saying Scripture is limited (or even wrong) in a scientific or historical sense. If wrong there, what about morality, etc? This leads me to wonder where the interaction is between Scripture and tradition or Scripture and its “orthodox” theological reading. Now I am just rambling!
Brian,
As usual, you hit the nail on the head (and it’s always a pleasure to read what you write). In what sense(s) can we trust scripture?
My personal argument would be that II Timothy 3 gives us our best shot at establishing a Biblical hermeneutic. A suspicion I have is that Protestant soteriology, and the issues surrounding “justification by faith alone”, plays a part in the difficluty of this– if you’d like an example, you can reference II Timothy 3:15 for a glimpse of how scriptural interpretation could be influenced by your concept of regeneration/etc, because the scriptures “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”.
Ultimately, I don’t believe that scripture interprets itself, and thus I remain unconfident of any broad interpretation of scripture. Scripture is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. Outside of that, I’m not confident of any authoritative approach/interpretation.
Eluros
I wonder what makes Scripture’s “usefulness” in these areas superior to creeds or confessions or the great works of later Christian theologians? I agree that Scripture doesn’t seem to make the same claims that something like the CSBE does, yet I think we’d agree it has a special place of authority even if we use language like infallibility to merely “authoritative” in a sense that implies superiority to other writings.
If we reject divine ordination of the words of Scripture, it’s going to affect how we view the study of the original texts. The practice of the average pastor, teacher or Biblical scholar in appealing to the Greek or Hebrew to establish a textual meaning is put into doubt. For example, why bother arguing about the meaning of a verse based on the tense or usage of a key word, if the words themselves were not inspired and could be in error?
bh
Couldn’t we argue that the existence of textual variants already provides that problem so maybe meaning, while impacted by the uniqueness of various words, must be found in the broader message of a text?
(1) Do you use the word “inerrancy” to describe your understanding of Scripture? Why or why not? (If not, can you explain your “doctrine of Scripture?”)
I don’t know exactly what you mean by doctrine of scripture. I would say doctrine of scripture is the bible. The bible is Scripture.
(2) If you were to provide a brief definition of the doctrine of inerrancy what would it include?
i actually wrote a post on what is inerrancy while back.http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/what-is-inerrancy/
But this is how I personally define inerrancy. “Now, when I think of inerrancy, I think of Occam’s Razor approach and I assume the most simple and elegant definition of inerrancy…..NO ERRORS. “The theological basis of the belief of inerrancy, in its simplest form, is that as God is perfect, the Bible, as the word of God, must also be perfect, thus, free from error.” (New World Encyclopedia: Biblical Inerrancy) ”
(3) Can there be a doctrine of inerrancy divorced from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? If so, what are the “practical” consequences? If not, why?
Yes, It seems there actual several different definionts of inerrancy not just one. Some only apply inerrancy to spiritual things and things of the faith. Some call it limited inerrancy. Others use infallibility, which is different versions of definion that is also considered inerrancy. I think when you deny inerrancy of the bible, that can lead down a slippery slope. (But that is just my personal opinion.)
(4) How does your doctrine of Scripture impact your hermeneutics? Can you use Genesis 1-11 as a case study/example?
That is alot to go over in one comment. but to set things straight, I no longer believe in inerrancy of the bible. And I would say genesis 1-11 is folklore.