I believe in a doctrine called inerrancy. More particularly, I call it “reasoned inerrancy” to distinguish it from other more “technically precise” models. In short: I believe that the Bible, when interpreted correctly, is true in everything that it intends to teaches. Those are some important qualifiers: “in everything it intends to teach” and “when interpreted rightly.” This assumes that some of the that which the Bible records is not necessarily its teaching. It also assumes that the truth is only found when the Bible is understood the way it was meant to be understood and that it can be understood wrongly. A wrong interpretation is not inerrant.
One of the first questions that I asked at seminary was how do we know when a passage in the Bible is supposed to be believed? In other words, the Bible records falsehoods, lies, and wrong actions. When David committed adultery, this was a record of a wrong action. When Peter said he did not know who Christ was, this was a lie. Then there is Samson, Jonah, and Lot. And don’t even get me started on Solomon. All of whom are presented in a shady light in the narrative yet are, generally speaking, heroes of Scripture and of our faith. How are we to know what examples to follow? With Job and his “friends”: when are we supposed to trust what they say and when do we assume that they got it wrong. Who creates the rules? I have seen a number of teachers quote Job’s friends when teaching theology. Wait…I thought they were bad. So they are bad and can be trusted at times? As well, Job himself seems to say some good things that we like to quote and other things that we write off to his distress. Oh the the difficulties in interpretation. Sometimes it is hard to know what the Scripture is actually teaching.
That is why I am starting this new series called “Case Studies in Inerrancy.” I am going to attempt to open up the discussion a bit concerning the doctrine of inerrancy to demonstrate that things get a little messy sometimes. Most importantly, I want to illustrate how the doctrine of inerrancy does not assume one particular hermeneutic (method of interpretation). In other words, often when people approach the Scripture with an assumption of inerrancy it causes them to nuance their hermeneutic. This then produces a sort of “hermeneutic of inerrancy” where the preservation of inerrancy becomes the goal rather than the correct interpretation of Scripture.
My goal with this series to present some case studies of particular passages that will help us nuance our understanding of inerrancy around our hermeneutic rather than nuancing our hermeneutic around inerrancy.
Let me start with this question to get the discussion rolling: In the narrative portions of Scripture, how do you know when we are supposed to trust what is being said?
Take Peter for example. In Acts of the Apostles, is everything Peter says fit for doctrine or are there times when we say that he is wrong? We know that before Acts Peter was not the best example. At what point did he become an example? How reliable is he in Acts? What rules do we follow?
What about with Job? Is everything he says correct and his friends wrong? Or does Job say some wrong things? Does his friends says some correct things? What are your rules for determining what is correct in Scripture and what is wrong?
46 replies to "Case Studies in Inerrancy: A New P&P Series"
Hey Michael,
Are we allowed to leave possible questions for you to consider in this series? I guess not, since you would have hundreds of them coming at you. Or maybe you can choose some of the better ones.
I have questions like this:
1) Our idea of inerrancy, as stated in places like the Chicago Statement, is that the Bible is inerrant only in its original autographs. But we don’t have those originals? So why make a statement about something we don’t have and probably never will? Does this somehow make us feel safer?
2) Also, with regards to the original autographs, that would mean that the OT is inerrant only in the original Hebrew manuscripts. But, interestingly enough, the NT writers usually quoted the Greek Septuagint. But, by our modern definition of inerrancy, this means the NT writers were themselves quoting from a text that was not inerrant. Knowing this, have we created too tight a box about inerrancy?
Those are just a couple of questions to start.
Well, I think we trust what is being said only when we know it is the position of the church. Within the book of Job, God’s answer seems to be that Job should just shut up and remember who is the boss. And don’t even start on Ecclesiastes, ’cause it’s completely schizo.
Indeed, Ecclesiastes provides some of the most-used proof texts for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs about the soul and afterlife. The reason this is so is because it provides such a great sourcebook for their idiosyncratic beliefs.
Bryan, believe me…Eccl will not miss this series.
Scott, those are great questions. I would love for Dan to tackle it sometime.
You are more than welcome to suggest particular Scriptures that you think would be relavant to a discussion on inerrancy. I think I will post my first one tonight. I already have the Scripture. It is 1 Sam 26:5-16. I think it will provide a very good start to this study and give you an idea in the direction that it will take.
To preface this with an idea of where I’m coming from, a lot of my thoughts here build off of Vanhoozer’s Drama of Doctrine.
I’m not sure that I like the question of whether or not everything Peter says is fit for doctrine. Every word of the Bible is fit for doctrine in some sense, but almost none of it (maybe none, I haven’t thought that far yet) can be directly lifted from the text and turned into a theological statement. Maybe I’m misreading you a bit here, though.
What we need to do with Peter’s sermons in Acts is to understand them as being part of a story. We have to determine what the purpose of the whole story of Acts is, and how those sermons fit into that story before we can even discuss theologically what to do with the content of Peter’s sermons. We must do something with them, because all of Scripture is God’s word. We can’t pick and choose and we can’t abstract statements. With that said, I have not studied Acts much so I can’t get into specifics on how to deal with these texts, so this is more of a comment of how to proceed in theory.
Seems to me that we should use the more didactic portions of Scripture to help us interpret those other portions of Scripture that may be less easily understood, such as Job, Ecclesiastes, etc.
With Peter in The Acts of the Apostles, we know that Peter was wrong in at least one thing: his prejudice and hypocrisy toward the Gentiles lasted many years, at least until the Apostle Paul confronted him about it. But, does this necessarily mean he was wrong in his preaching the doctrine of the apostles – that is, the gospel, the nature of Christ, and the exposition of the OT in light of Jesus, etc. I think that if we’re to judge whether Peter got something wrong, we would be wise to judge his statements in Acts verses those of Paul in his Epistles, and the words of Jesus in the Gospels. I guess what I’m saying is that Peter’s words in Acts – if inerrancy is true – should correlate with the other Apostles teachings and with the Gospels.
Regarding Job, I think a similar approach is necessary. Job’s friends seem to make statements about God that are similar to those in Proverbs, but still, their application of certain truths, along with their assumption of how those truths of God actually play out in the world, is faulty. I think a careful comparison of how Job reacts to his friend’s words, along with both Elihu’s and God’s responses, could bring to light what they got wrong. Also important is how the teaching portions of the Pentateuch shed light on God’s character and on whether or not Job’s friends got it right or not. (Not to mention using the New Testament as well.)
I should add that this my thoughts here are very much in flux and probably haven’t thought this through as well as I need to. So even though I’m not the biggest fan of the question. Thanks for asking it! I think it’s worth wrestling with.
CMP, you ask “In the narrative portions of Scripture, how do you know when we are supposed to trust what is being said?”
I’m not sure I know what you mean by “trust.” I trust all that I read in the Bible. I may not always understand it. But I trust it.
If it troubles me or I don’t think I quite grasp what is written, then I consult the writings of scholars and men and women of the faith who have come before me. I rely on the traditions of the Church to help me understand. I may ask my priest or another Christian to help me understand. I pray and ask the Spirit to help me understand. Usually, I come away with a satisfactory understanding. Occasionally, I have to simply accept my lack of understanding.
I’m interested to see where you go with this, since I don’t see any way to “trust” or understand outside the traditions and teachings of the Church.
To fill up your comments section, perhaps I should make one clarification. I think I’m working under a broader understanding of doctrine as, ‘that which we draw from Scripture to inform our Christian experience, belief, and practice,’ or something along those lines. The active roll of doctrine in informing practice is what I think enables some misunderstandings of God that we find in the Bible to act as doctrine, many stories in Judges for example stand as warnings of ways not to think about God and live. So that may be part of why I initially didn’t like your question. I’m working under a different notion of doctrine.
So to answer maybe what you were asking, I think we need to understand what the purpose of the section of Scripture is. When we understand that then we can understand exactly how (positively or negatively) specific passages inform our doctrine.
ScottL,
My quick answer: This is no different in substance than the qualification “when interpreted correctly”, or “when translated correctly”.
The Bible’s inerrancy doesn’t imply that my ideas will be correct after I read it. I can misunderstand it. The translation I’m using can be flawed. What’s the result? However confident I am that the Bible teaches X, I should be equally confident that X is true.
Same goes for copying errors. We have manuscripts that differ, based on copying mistakes or (sometimes) intentional changes. The vast majority have no impact on the meaning (because they’re simple spelling mistake, or “color/colour”-style variations, or meaningless word-order changes, etc). For others, there’s no reasonable chance that they come from the original (i.e. they’re not “viable”). And then there’s a small percentage that are both meaningful and viable. In those cases, we’re not sure what the Bible says.
That doesn’t change the principle: However confident I am that the Bible teaches X, I should be equally confident that X is true.
Michael, I’d love to see you address whether Paul is expressing personal opinion in 1 Cor 7, especially verses 7, 12 and 40. That final one seems especially tricky because he claims it’s his judgment, which seems to indicate opinion, but then he claims to be Spirit led. But does he really mean unmarried widows are happier? I think I know some remarried widows who’d disagree.
So, if Paul is expressing personal opinion, could he be in error? Verse 7 seems to indicate Paul disagrees with God’s creation of marriage.
Then I get to wondering – if 1 Cor 7 contains Paul’s personal opinion, what other scriptures might only be the writer’s opinion? Or does it matter? Is such opinion inerrant?
Okay, I’ll be the devil’s advocate here: Why are we asking why what we think matters so much, as opposed to answering the question about what constitutes inerrancy as the Lord considers it instead?
Hi Michael! Well, with a loose definition of “teaching”, I might end up being a subscriber to inerrancy. The questions you give are not as easy to answer as one might think. If we include Jobs dialogues, why not Solomans Proverbs? Why not Davids Psalms? Does the Bible teach that I should pray that God slay the wicked, and that I should hate them with complete hatred?
If we probe this further, and ask pesky questions about the canon, things start to make a little more sense. Why are these books scripture? In the NT, books were included or excluded, not on the basis of inerrancy, but rather on the basis of apostolic witness (which is why Hebrews was such a close one). So scripture exists to witness to Christ. Therefore the first and foremost metric of Christian scriptural interpretation needs to be Christocenfricity. This, at least, is the methodology of the Church fathers.
And, really, aren’t we told this? If you diligently study the scriptures I but don’t seethe testimony about Christ, you are missing their teaching (John 6).
Anyway, I think Job is a great place to start on this question. Notice that it was Job’s friends who defended the inerrancy of God, and Job who questioned. Job was humbled, yes, but ultimately he is judged to be the one fundamentally in the right.
Here’s a post I wrote awhile back meditating on Job as a parable about wrestling with the inerrancy of the Bible:
http://wondersforoyarsa.blogspot.com/2006/09/fighting-with-bible.html
And here’s the whole series on Job, culminating in how Job testifies about Christ:
http://wondersforoyarsa.blogspot.com/2006/09/book-of-job.html
(sorry for the shameless plug. This really was sone of the best reflections on the Bible I’ve written, and I wish I could reproduce it all here in this discussion.)
For the example of Peter I would assume that narrative about him is just that, but when he is quoted authoritatively then we are to understand what he says is true.
More fundamentally I see the key to your question is to read Scripture from the perspective of the author. Thus when I read a Psalm of David I treat what he says as inerrant. But when I read about David in Samuel and Kings I assume the author of that book is inerrant, thus a narrative about David in those books is judged by the authors judgment, and lacking that, our best understanding of the narrative.
This solves much of your problem. Peter is inerrant in first and second Peter, but not necessarily so in Acts or the gospels.
I agree that Job and Ecclesiastes can be difficult. Job is hard because both Job and his friends say true and false things, but we don’t always get clues from the author of the book whether what they say is correct or not.
I tend to think some of the error is in how things are said, as well as the inappropriate assumption that general truths can always be applied specifically, much how Christians quote proverbs (that are generally true) to others where they may not be applicable. It is not that what they say is basically untrue, rather their application is false in a specific situation, and therefore also unkind.
Michael,
This idea of inerrancy, does it come from “God-breathed”?
My main question is this:
Is there anything within the definition of “God-breathed” that requires the final output on the papyri to be “without the possibility of human error”? In other words, to say a writing is “God-breathed” to me seems to say nothing more than God’s input can be detected within it. But, I do not see where “God-breathed” must mean that no human errors could enter the canonical writings, thereby manifesting the “co-authorship” of God AND man.
I must admit that the OT seems to have enough human errors to support my thoughts on God-breathed, but the number of errors in the NT seems ‘divinely’ low. Not sure what accounts for that.
CQ
To my understanding inerrancy is not about whether David lied or Jobs friends pontificated about things too grand for their understanding, but that every word in the originals is the word God intended to be there. If David lies in the text then God wanted to include David’s lie as part of his message to us. It is true that David lied, right? True that Solomon had more wives than he could handle? True that Jobs friends were terrible comfort and thought themselves to be theologians who had arrived? They are all examples of true falsehoods. The falsehoods that are recorded are there because the bible is inerrant, God does not lie or embellish the account, and it is a true account of man’s sinfulness too. It is also true that (every) man is a liar. Let God be true..
CMP –
By the way, I am the guy in Belgium that you sent the package to. 🙂
Jugulum –
Thanks for the short answer. Do know I have no problem with my ‘flawed’ ESV copy of the Scripture. I enjoy reading it, studying it, digesting it, hearing God speak through it, teaching it, preaching from it, etc.
But I do think our definition of inerrancy is, as CMP might say, a bit to modernistic. I think we have been so influenced by modern empirical ideology that our typical evangelical view of inerrancy has tightened to an extreme. I think we do it with a heart to honour God in His communication in Scripture. But I think we leave out dealing with a lot of honest questions about the text and this overly structured evangelical idea of inerrancy.
Again, if the autographs were so inerrant and perfect, why did God not decide to perfectly preserve this inerrant work through the centuries? Instead, He allowed scribal edits and changes, formulation over centuries and centuries, scribal errors, not giving us absolute guidance on deciding on a canon, etc? Or, why did the NT writers generally quote from the Septuagint, which by our modern definition, was not the inerrant Scripture since it was not the autographs? By the time those first century AD writers were writing, there had been quite a few copying mistakes, edits, changes, etc. These are questions that I have not found satisfying answers for with those who say they hold to the evangelical view of inerrancy.
I don’t have a problem with all of this. I really believe that the canon of Scripture we have is the best and most complete revelation of our God in Christ Jesus that we can have today. It’s not a hoax, it’s not false, it’s not deceptive. It is truth, again the best testimony of truth we have. But none of this fits into the full acceptance of something like the Chicago Statement of inerrancy. The articles in it are too tightly formulated.
Those are some questions and thoughts I have.
CMP –
A few passages to consider:
1) Why Matthew (28:2) and Mark (16:5) reported one angel at the tomb of Jesus at His resurrection, but why Luke (24:4) and John (20:12) reported two angels?
I have no problem with this and I have some thoughts on this, as I don’t believe it cuts away at the reliability and faithfulness of the text. But does this give allowance to accept some strict statements about the inerrancy of Scripture?
2) Also, why does Matthew (8:28) report two demoniacs but Mark (5:2) and Luke (8:27) report only one demonized man?
Again, as with the former question, I don’t have a problem with this at all. I know that differing people write differing accounts. Even today, we would report differing details about a particular event if asked to report them. But I still am not sure a strict view of inerrancy allows for this.
We say God is perfect and His Word is perfect. But if His Word is so perfect, if Scripture is ‘without error’, then I’m wondering what we call these things? Do we just skip over and say they are not errors? I know how to explain these things, as I think I did above about two people reporting two differing sets of details. But again, we as evangelicals rave about the perfection of Scripture. But does Scripture fit into an overly structured definition of inerrancy and perfection?
Just some things I am wondering and thinking through.
ScottL,
I think perhaps that your thoughts & reservations are influenced overmuch by modernism. 🙂
I understand where you’re coming from, and I do connect with your concern–but when I apply the comparison to flaws & translations, I go, “Oh. Sure.”
You asked, “Again, if the autographs were so inerrant and perfect, why did God not decide to perfectly preserve this inerrant work through the centuries? Instead, He allowed scribal edits and changes, formulation over centuries and centuries, scribal errors, not giving us absolute guidance on deciding on a canon, etc?”
Suppose we did have the original manuscripts, and (somehow) had perfect certainty that they actually were the original manuscripts. (Though that certainty is a pretty big supposition–I have no idea how that would work.) Would you or I have perfect certainty that we know precisely what the Bible says? No.
(1) We wouldn’t be sure that the translators did a perfect job. (There isn’t any such thing, actually.) (2) Or, if you speak the original languages, you wouldn’t be sure that you understand this dead language perfectly. (3) Even if you were a 1st-century Greek-speaker, you wouldn’t understand the OT Hebrew perfectly. (4) But even if you were part of one of the churches who received a letter from an apostle or one of the first readers of the gospels, you also wouldn’t understand it perfectly.
In other words, if the Bible is so inerrant and perfect, why did God not decide to ensure that we can’t misunderstand it?
How would you answer that question?
I answer it the same way I answer yours: However confident I am that the Bible teaches X, I should be equally confident that X is true. (And we can be confident beyond reasonable doubt about quite a lot.)
What is it about the Doctrine of Inerrancy (ie., the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) that causes errantists to gnash their teeth and keep pushing that the Bible is errant?
ScottL, I absolutely agree with you regarding the modernistic mindset (and with Jugulum’s conclusion). The problem I have with inerrancy is that it’s not enough. By itself, it’s cold and clinical; a nuts-and-bolts description of the text, while scripture describes itself as living. Some people act as if an inerrant text is all we need, effectively ignoring the role of the Holy Spirit in teaching through scripture. In other words, the cold, clinical approach does not address the purpose of scripture, so it only tells half the story. I prefer infallible for those reasons.
Furthermore, some seem to think that if there is one error, then nothing in scripture can be trusted. To me, that seems to indicate faith placed in scripture instead of in the One who ultimately produced scripture. And that doesn’t seem right.
Still, I hope Michael addresses some of the verses that have been mentioned. I have no problem at all with the number of angels or the number of women who went to the tomb. For inerrancy, I think verses like Mark 1:2 and 2:26 are a bigger problem.
Dave Z,
I imagine Michael will address Mark 1:2. (You’re talking about the “as it says in Isaiah” attribution, when parts of the quotation don’t come from Isaiah.) I think I know how he’ll address. So I won’t try to argue the point to conclusion–but I want to ask it as a hypothetical, “Would this kind of answer satisfy you, if it checks out?”
What if it was standard, accepted practice to combine a series of quotes from different sources, but attribute the collection to the most important source? In that case, “as it says in Isaiah” wouldn’t imply that the entire quote comes from Isaiah.
In principle, that’s similar to the difference between “Jugulum said he wouldn’t attempt to completely prove the point”, and “Jugulum said, ‘I won’t try to argue the point to conclusion’.” The first isn’t a mistake–it doesn’t claim to be an exact quote.
Yes, I’ve heard that explanation, but it’s one of the thousand qualifications we have to make for inerrancy to fit the data. If we’re not bound by common sense (or maybe common usage), we can explain anything.
Specifically for that verse, Mark could have said “the prophets” or “the scriptures” and we would have nothing to discuss. If we accept verbal inspiration, why didn’t God “fix” that reference? (Some might say the Received text is the correct one, and “Isaiah” is a corruption)
But bottom line, that explanation could be true, though I have never seen it clearly supported scripturally or historically, so it just seems a little too convenient. Commentaries speak of the common NT practice of stringing together verses with a common theme, but it’s a big leap from that to crediting them all to one person. I’ve not studied this in depth, so I don’t know. Can this practice be supported by other scriptural or historical examples?
Let me say again – for me, such “problems” do not affect the authority of scripture, but I do see them as problems for a strict inerrancy position.
That’s why I asked, “if it was standard, accepted practice”.
Yes, that could be a too-convenient answer, if we have no reason to think there was any such practice. And we shouldn’t accept it too easily. It might not be valid–I don’t know either, whether this answer is historically-supported.
But I don’t understand why you would call this idea a “qualification” on inerrancy, or against common sense. If you say, “Jugulum said X” without quotation marks, you’re not saying that I said those exact words. But by your rationale, you made an error.
But if I accused you of misquoting me (even if you faithfully represented my meaning), then I’m the one who would be violating common sense.
You’re assigning things to the “strict inerrantist position” that make no sense to me. I regard this “qualification” as simple translation.
Jugulum –
In other words, if the Bible is so inerrant and perfect, why did God not decide to ensure that we can’t misunderstand it?
Good question. It really is. And what if the answer to the above and to mine is that God’s desire was not to supersede the humanity in either case – writing of Scripture nor understanding of Scripture? I’m fine with the Scripture being both fully human and fully divine. It kind of mirrors that guy named Jesus – He being both fully divine and fully human. But, as with Christ, I think we can overly downplay His humanity while overplaying His divinity too much (not to say it’s bad to focus on His divinity). We (not necessarily you) can act as if Jesus hovered 2 inches above the ground. And so, with Scripture, I think we might overplay its divine origin and forget or downplay the human aspect of it.
Truth Unites –
I don’t know if your comment was to me or not, but I would classify myself as an ‘errantist’. I am simply an evangelical asking questions. An evangelical who loves the Scriptures and asking questions.
The new case study is up. As you may notice, I am not simply dealing with traditional problems/errors that people bring up, but other interpretive issues that inerrantists must wrestle with.
Why do we have to have an inerrant Bible?
Or, a better question is why does God need an inerrant Bible to get done what He wills to get done?
Jesus Himself was fully a product of man, and of God.
God uses earthen vessels, sinful man, to get across Hid perfect Word…does He not?
The Sacraments are just bread and wine, and not much of them at that. Does not God will the finite to contain the infinite?
I say that He does.
The finite contains the infinite. The Book does not have to be perfect and without error. We can believe all of it and trust all of it, even though fallible man had a hand in it. The infallible God also had a hand in it, and that is what counts.
Thanks.
Steve, I am an inerrantist, but I certianly would never defend a position that says, as you have, that God could not have communicated himself without one.
I am simply an inerrantist out of theological deduction concerning my definition of Scripture. In other words, I am a deductive inerrantist, not an inductive one.
Scott,
Sure. One way people do that is by viewing inspiration as dictation. So that the writers of Scripture didn’t compose anything—they simply wrote what God told them to write, like a secretary dictating a letter. So when Paul told Timothy to fetch his cloak, that’s not actually a request from Paul—I suppose Paul was thinking, “Oh, I’m glad God had me ask for my cloak. I am cold!”
But then, Jesus’ humanity doesn’t imply that he ever mistakenly taught something. And human involvement in the writing of Scripture doesn’t have to affect the principle: However confident I am that the Bible teaches X, I should be equally confident that X is true.
Michael,
God uses earthen vessels. He is much bigger than the god of Islam, who needs a perfect book.
The message of the Bible is inerrant. Every jot and tittle need not be.
Thanks, Michael.
Yeah, Steve, that’s where I end up. It goes to purpose. But I would not call myself an errantist – I don’t know if there is error and I don’t worry about it – God ensures his message gets through.
Dave,
Good point, my friend.
This is an interesting post, because I have been thinking and discussing these very same things recently http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/01/sunday-study-inerrancy-and-biblical-authority.html . There I point out that one can contend that what scripture teaches is true and also that it contains errors of a certain sort, provided the errors not what is actually taught in the text.
It seems to me the answer viz a viz Peter is to understand a bit about how his authority works. Peter is an Apostle, this means that when he teaches in his function as an apostle he speaks for Christ. It does not mean every personal opinion, idea or action he expresses outside this role is authoritative. Hence Peter’s epistles sent to churches as an apostle to instruct them are authoritative. His personal actions conversations etc recorded in a history are not necessarily authoritative.
If a hit and run takes place and two witnesses disagree about the color of the driver’s hat, does that mean that the hit and run never occurred?
The Bible describes a flat earth in Genesis. We know better, but the people whom God used to write the Genesis accounting did not.
Where was the Holy Spirit given to the church? At Pentecost..or in the upper room?
Who showed up at the empty tomb first?
A myriad of writers, a plethora of translators over centuries…and NO errors, at all?
And if the Bible really is without ANY errors at all…then which Bible?
The Roman Church has one, the Protestants have one, and the Orthodox have one (not to mention all the versions of those).
It doesn’t matter if there are. The message..the Word…is infallible.
Steve, how would you feel about these:
The Bible describes people as being demon possessed. We now know that they were just schizophrenic. The point is the Jesus healed them.
Then…
The Bible says that Jesus healed people. We now know that they were medical anomalies. The point is that they were healed.
I hate slippery slope arguments, but they sometimes do have their place to make a point.
How does the line of argumentation that you just used differ from the ones that I used?
The fact that the earth is not flat and the Heavens are not a dome, is an error.
That the Scriptures declare two different occassions when the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples surely seems contradictory.
Does it matter? No it doesn’t. Not to those that walk by faith and not by sight.
Humans are fallible. God uses humans for His purposes.
People are either demon possessed, or they are not.
I’m not sure if we are qualified to know the difference between a mental illness and a possession by demons.
But we are able to proclaim a perfect God who uses the finite for His infinite purposes.
ScottL: “I don’t know if your comment was to me or not, but I would classify myself as an ‘errantist’. I am simply an evangelical asking questions. An evangelical who loves the Scriptures and asking questions.”
#1. Inerrantists also ask questions.
#2. Eg., “What is it about the Doctrine of Inerrancy (ie., the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) that causes errantists to gnash their teeth and keep pushing that the Bible is errant?”
Dave Z: “But I would not call myself an errantist – I don’t know if there is error and I don’t worry about it – God ensures his message gets through.”
I don’t think an errantist would call you an errantist either.
Truth Unites –
That was a BIG mistake on my part in that comment. It meant to say, ‘I would NOT classify myself as an errantist.’
Oops, should have read my comment over carefully before hitting the button. 🙂
I don’t have a problem with the Chicago Statement or of inerrancy. But I am asking questions beyond the typical textbook evangelical answers that we usually give, probably like you too ask those questions.
Anyways, wanted to clear up that I would never classify myself as an errantist. But my questions might lead me to qualify what I mean by the word inerrancy, as you might too.
Thanks
Jugulum –
But then, Jesus’ humanity doesn’t imply that he ever mistakenly taught something. And human involvement in the writing of Scripture doesn’t have to affect the principle: However confident I am that the Bible teaches X, I should be equally confident that X is true.
But what about this: Jesus in his incarnation, in his 100% complete humanity still had morning breath, still passed gas, still had body odor, maybe tripped over a large root of a tree sticking out, still didn’t make a 100 A+ on his mathematics exam, etc. He was still the perfect Son of God, but that statement has to be qualified, right? I don’t think Jesus’ perfection kept him from the common realities of what it meant to be a human being. But I know he did not speak falsehood, did not deceive, spoke truth, only did what he saw the Father doing, never sinning against his Father or humanity, etc.
So, with Scripture, in the reality that it also comes completely from man (as well as completely from God), we must allow for the ‘morning breath’, the ‘body odor’, etc, etc.
Again, I believe Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) and I believe God’s words directly from Him are pure and perfect (Ps 12:6). But does ‘God-breathed’ mean that it can’t allow for detail mistakes, a little body odor of humanity, if you will, since it is written by humans. And cannot Scripture be recognised as not all being direct utterance from God. I’m not talking about dictation where the writer’s eyes rolled back in their head, they foamed at the mouth, and then wrote. I think we all realise that isn’t what happened (though I believe a lot of it was direct communication from God).
I’m talking about Paul telling Timothy to bring his cloak, take a little wine if he is not well, tell one church to deal with a situation in an exact way but not tell another to deal with it in that same way since such words were only wise for one context and not the other. But Paul was ‘writing the word of God’, so shouldn’t the Romans deal with their problem exactly the way Paul told the Corinthians to deal with it? I mean, if it was God’s direct words by the ‘inspired’ apostle, doesn’t it mean that we all obey exactly what it says? Or why could two Gospel writers, inspired by the same God, report that there was one demoniac and another report there was two. It’s not a simple detail to miss right, especially for guys recording things theopneustos?
Anyways, maybe this is chasing rabbit trails. Again, I love Scripture. I adore the One who breathed it out through the humans that we are. But I am wondering if this ‘inerrancy’ thing in the more modernistic idea that we have developed is what God meant when He meant a God-breathed Scripture through humans.
[…] first post in the series on inerrancy references a previous post where Michael Patton provides two different definitions for inerrancy. […]
CMP says:
“This then produces a sort of ”hermeneutic of inerrancy” where the preservation of inerrancy becomes the goal rather than the correct interpretation of Scripture.”
But are you, by that statement, assuming that interpretation overrides inerrancy as well? I think both have to be in correct balance to present a proper hermeneutic for the understanding of scripture.
Otherwise we would be saying, it seems to me, that theological exegesis itself reigns supreme nowadays, which is the other very dangerous extreme of what you are talking about. This is also a nuance that I feel needs to be seriously addressed in the present day theological community.
Inerrancy: The ‘Fifty Years War’ and Counting —
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100818/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-the-fifty-years-warand-counting/index.html
I do believe the Word (not text) of God in inerrant, meaning without fault, fully realizing the Lords purpose for warning (interpretations) of changing a dot or tittle. It is a waste of time to list the textual errors evident.
Yet it is not the text or bible that truth is found and obtained, but by the HS assuring the word will be spiritually discerned. This certainly would worry the Teacher for the immature that may be misled having mind yet un-renewed as the Lord commands necessary.
Mincing no words with great intellect not possessed, am thankful that even those most common may in time change from wisdon and knowledge of this world into the wisdom and knowledge of God, having the mind of the Lord serving as He sees fit.
Why did God need semiliterate and obviously unworldly tribesmen to convey his words? You’d think an infinite being could have dispensed with all of that, and just have presented the complete work in a language that would be universally and forever understandable to all people. You don’t think he was too limited to do that, was he?
Are we not supposed to be concerned with the obvious errors and contradictions? What does “the Word” really mean? It seems rather subjective, given the vigorous disagreements among devout inerrants.
And then there was The Council of Nicaea, Constantine, and all the politics. What was the point? To sow confusion?