Earlier this week I wrote a post inviting readers to discuss the doctrine of inerrancy (see “Inerrancy questionnaire”) and yesterday I posted the response sent to me by Michael Halcomb. The second person to respond is my friend Greg Monette, a Ph.D. student at the Oxford Centre for Missions Studies. This is what he said:
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 use the word inerrancy. It’s a new doctrine that has only been around for a little over a hundred years. Besides, the Chicago statement is very new. The Early Church Fathers didn’t seem to have much of a problem with harmonizing every apparent problem in the biblical text. It might be a post-enlightenment thing to want to have everything 100% unambiguous and orderly.
Also: Not to go back to the whole Geisler/Licona thing because that was an absolute disaster for fundamentalists (not surprisingly). Inerrancy becomes sort of a “sneaky” way to smash someone if they don’t line up with your particular interpretation of some verse or passage. I have rarely seen an inerrantist balance the fruits of the spirit with the application of their position on inerrancy. All of a sudden, love, joy, peace, patience etc., goes out the window and people give themselves permission to start calling other people names. It’s not worth it and I think it may cause damage to the kingdom.
I must say however that I like the general idea of inerrancy as it pushes people to have a high view of Scripture. That being said, I don’t think many Inerrantists have a high enough view of Scripture. They have a theology that they have to fit Scripture into. If that doesn’t happen, then it must not be the correct reading. Inerrancy undermines an authoritative reading of the Bible.
If you were to provide a brief definition of the doctrine of inerrancy what would it include?
The bible is completely true in everything it says with zero room for error of any kind.
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, I believe there could be. After all, defining something as having no errors of any kind is as much a matter of interpretation as it tries to be an objective statement. There is plenty of room for interpretation.
How does your doctrine of Scripture impact your hermeneutics? Can you use Genesis 1-11 as a case study/example?
I think F.F. Bruce said it beautifully:
F.F. Bruce: “I should not find the career of a Bible teacher so satisfying as I do if I were not persuaded that the Bible is God’s word written. The fact that I am so persuaded means that I must not come to the Bible with my own preconceptions of what the Bible, as God’s word written, can or cannot say. It is important to determine, by the canons of grammatical, textual, historical and literary study, what it actually does say.
“Occasionally, when I have expounded the meaning of some biblical passage in a particular way, I have been asked, ‘But how does that square with inspiration?’ But inspiration is not a concept of which I have a clear understanding before I come to the study of the text, so that I know in advance what limits are placed on the meaning of the text by the requirements of inspiration. On the contrary, it is by the patient study of the text that I come to understand better not only what the text itself means but also what is involved in biblical inspiration. My doctrine of Scripture is based on my study of Scripture, not vice versa.” (In Retrospect, pg. 311)
Study the Bible first, worry about theology after. Don’t let the tail wag the dog.
What do you think of these answers?
the archives near Emmaus 
Great post, Greg. Further to your point, I think we should stick with the historic position of the church which is that scripture infallibly discloses Gods truth and will for faith and practice. This rigid approach of innerly (as you rightly state has been around for only a century or so) has set up our youth to become apostates. I accept and hold to what scripture affirms and I want to do my level best to teach it accordingly. I defend scripture not creeds. I do not reject inerrancy in that I feel like I need to teach against it, criticize it or anything like that. However, I prefer to go with the older orthodox definition of the church. I do not like the term ‘Inerrancy’ because it is not the historic definition of the scriptures. I am an infallibist, I hold to infallibility. Infallibility by definition reveals the truth in all matters in faith and practice. Inerrancy creates problems. It has to be qualified endlessly. I uphold the old creeds which speak of the infallibility of scripture and frankly, I don’t think dropping that for inerrancy was a smart move. It shifts the burden, its complicated and always requires qualification.
In my opinion, it is a defective defense mechanism. I am really concerned about Christian witness and testimony coming across unthinkingly legalistic.
The fact that this doctrine is confined not only to a later time period, but virtually confined to the US (and its missionary offspring) is another reason why Christians should consider it suspect, and work through the counsel of the whole church, past and present.
Jeremy: You are right on the money. I’m an infallibist as well. I also think that we should have stuck with infallibility and not switched to inerrancy which is rightly in your words “a defective defense mechanism.” Inerrancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
Great point Danny… I when I first arrived in England and having several NT scholars tell me that they would never refer to themselves by the “americanism label of inherency” – These scholars were evangelical and held to orthodoxy… They merely saw this as an American view that never really impacted Britain. This was my experience taking with NT Profs throughout England/Scotland.
It seems like one of the major differences between British evangelicalism and American evangelicalism is that the British (with an emphasis on something like infallibility/authority) tend to emphasize the truthfulness of the “big picture”, i.e. Wright’s “five act drama” while Americans emphasis all the details–literal Adam, Noah’s flood, tower of Babel, everything.
I find certain often repeated idea, like that inerrancy is a modern invention, frustrating. Frustrating not because of any given ideological view, but because I am tired of Christians being either dishonest with history to make a point, or being grossly ignorant of history while making large historical claims. It is simply false that the idea that Scripture does not err in its
affirmations is a new idea. Serious historical scholars who have nothing to do with evangelicalism recognize this. Just
two examples: B.A. Gerrish, the great historical theologian, now emeritus from Universitiy of Chicago, has an essay on Luther and Calvin’s doctrine of Scripture in “The Old Protestantism and the New,” making it clear they affirmed what people today call inerrancy.
Second example is R.W.Southern, the great medieval scholar, recently deceased, who discusses “The Inerrancy of the Bible,” in his “Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe.” These are just two of many examples. Claims like those of Mr. Monette and others are common, but I find them embarrasing. If one does not agree with a position, that is fine; but don’t rewrite history to suit one’s conviction. This is something all people, but (annoyingly) Christians of all stripes have a tendency to do. The inerrancy issue is analogous to someone claiming most Christians throughout history didn’t actually think women could not be ordained: it’s just historical nonsense. If you think they should have thought we most of us now think, fine, make an informed evaluative historical judgment. Don’t make an idiotic one simply to suit one’s position today.
It’s ironic that the dictionary definitions of infallible and inerrant are not that different.
Sam
Wow, you came out swinging. I hope Greg can take a moment to respond. I imagine that one thing that must be considered is that Greg doesn’t by that Calvin’s and Luther’s view is equivalent to modern inerrancy, even if it is a precursor. For example, Luther’s doubt about the canonical status of the Book of James is a far cry from modern inerrancy. I don’t know much about Calvin, but didn’t he struggle with the Book of Revelation’s place as Scripture?
Mike
It is Christian talk. The dictionary does seem to present them as basically the same. I think in Christian circles the difference, when applied to Scripture, has to do with whether there are absolutely no errors of science, history, etc or whether Scripture’s general “meta-narrative” is true. Tomorrow’s post by Bobby Grow will provide some additional, helpful things to consider on this matter as well.
There wasn’t even a fixed canon until the late fourth century, so there wasn’t a bible that could be viewed as inerrent for centuries after Jesus died. Christianity developed without the necessaity to believe in the absolute truth of a particular set of writings.
Victor
This is true, though there were some writings that gained wide acceptance like the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, plus the church had to Hebrew Scriptures, so it is worth asking what it means for the church to have believed in the truthfulness of those documents prior to the more complete canonization we see later down the road.
For me, the idea of inerrancy gets tossed out by my acceptance of the Canon. I’m one of those guys who accepts the 27 books that make up the NT found in most Bibles. In that set of Scriptures I find Jude’s letter – one I take to be authentic and authoritative. Even worse, I’ve got it early – like maybe as early as 45-50, and written by Jesus’ own brother. In that text, as you all know, Jude refers to the pseudepigraphal works of The Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. So my challenge becomes a matter of what Jesus’ own brother accepted as “Biblical.” I’m not saying that Jude was wrong. Nor am I saying that the books “Moses” and “Enoch” are either – but I don’t know any evangelicals of any persuasion (including biblicists and/or fundamentalists) who include them as part of their inerrant canon. Come to think of it, I think Luther wanted Jude gone too.
Jude is one example of the NT writers/characters using what we would consider an “expanded understanding” of Scripture.
Paul
The Epistle of Jude (and II Peter, which I think is dependent on Jude) do seem to say the type of things that indicate a fluid idea of canon and Scripture in the first century.
Geisler’s still going on with his little crusade even though no one really gives a rip about it any more. Way to go Geisler. Keep fighting the battles no one cares about embarrassing us all the more.
Geisler needs to retire.
Sam does have a point, even if overstated. Augustine has a quote often shown to argue for the historicity of ‘inerrancy’,
“I learned to show this reverence and respect only to those books of the scriptures which are now called canonical so that I most firmly believe that none of their authors erred in anything. And if I come across something in those writings that seems contrary to the truth, I have no doubt that either the manuscript is defective or the translator did not follow what was said or that I did not understand it.”
Letter 82.3
I also think Luther’s uneasiness with James is overstated, though no doubt he still had his reservations. Even if there has been a historical line of inerrancy there is no doubt that we have made a much larger and central issue than it has ever been.
One more point on Luther; even if he rejected (which he never went this far) the epistle of James as canonical, this does not then necessitate that he would also reject the concept of inerrancy (even in its precritical form). It just means that he disagrees with the inclusion of James in the canon (and this for theological not critical historical reasons).