The doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been especially controversial during the course of the last century, and continues to be so today. Inerrancy simply means that the Scriptures are without error in all that they affirm. (This applies specifically to the original manuscripts; unfortunatley, inspiration of "the writings" is no guarantee against corruption in textual transmission or fidelity of translation.) This has been the view of the church throughout history and for those who read the carefully nuanced views of the Princetonians like Warfield, Hodge, and Alexander, and the Chicago Statement will find that these comport with the historical position of the church. Prior to the higher criticism of the 18th century, the inerrancy (note: I understand this term as essentially identical to "infallibility") of Scripture was naturally assumed by the orthodox and heretic alike throughout Christendom. It is the obvious corollary to the full or "plenary" inspiration of Scripture taught in the Bible (2Tim.3:16), and touches most critically upon the authority of revelation. And so Augustine argued, for example, that the authority of the Scriptures would be unsettled if there was an error or contradiction in them.
There are two important mistakes people make with regard to inerrancy (usually by its critics). The first common mistake is conflating accuracy with precision. Scripture is accurate, but not necessarily precise in all of its reportings. For example, we often bring the expectations of modern historiography to the ancient text, and then, when Scripture fails to thus "measure up," we're confused. But the historical narratives of Scripture are neither scientifically precise nor are they exhaustive in reporting the details of the events they describe. The second mistake is the failure to understand the phenomological aspect of all literature, even biblical. Namely, Scripture typically narrates events within the conceptual and experiential framework of the authors and audience of the original text. Thus, for example, when Scripture says "the sun set," we should not think that it is advancing a geocentric view of the universe (anymore so than the local paper, when it tells us the times for "sunrise" and "sunset" each day). In all of this we must also keep in mind the intrepretive or hermeneutical principle of sensus literalis - that the text of Scripture should be read in terms of its literature or genre. We should read history as history, poetry as poetry, parable as parable, etc., etc.
The practical signficance of inerrancy can be seen in two important areas. First, because all Scripture is inspired, and therefore entirely trustworthy and true, all of Scripture is useful for training, teaching, correcting, and rebuking (2Tim.3:16-17). This is immensely important for establishing both the legitimacy and method of pastoral ministry, which Paul so clearly lays out for us in the Pastoral Epistles. Secondly, as Augustine once argued, when we encounter a problem in the text, inerrancy means that we have three options: 1) we have misunderstood the text, 2) there is a corruption in the translation or transmission of the manuscripts in hand in need of correction, 3) I am in need of correction.
There have been a number of times when the third scenario is in fact the case in my life. I didn't like the obvious meaning and application of a passage in Scripture, and so I either ignored it, or, perhaps even worse, gave a highly sophisticated and sophistic 'interpretation,' in order to avoid the provocative and disturbing implications of its prima facie and - let's be honest - clear meaning.
If you get a moment, check out this short article by John Frame at Reformed Theological Seminary regarding inerrancy.
As always, give us your thoughts!
5 comments:
Didn't even know this blog existed. I'll have something smart up on the next few days; I can write something in order to postpone starting my next chapter.
Also: my 'word verification' word is "psilerfa," which I believe is Turkish for "straw."
Are inerrancy and infallible the same thing?
Infallibility is typically defined as not misleading us. Inerrancy is defined traditionally as "without error." Obviously, inerrancy entails infallibility. But I would also suggest that infallibility entails inerrancy. That is, if Scripture never misleads us, i.e., never leads us an erroneous understanding of what it claims to represent (assuming, of course, that we're reading it correctly), then it is necessarily the case that it is without error. So I understand these terms, which are so carefully parsed by some theologians, as essentially synonymous.
While I have come again to believe in biblical authority and sufficiency, the doctrine of inerrancy nearly cost me my faith. In the denomination I grew up in (the PCA) it is seen to be a fundamental, without which there is no faith. After my conversion at L'Abri, I accepted this view unconsciously and without examination. When questions arose, I managed for nearly 20 years to 'shelve' them. But, when the 'shelf broke', it nearly broke my faith.
Your post recapitulates many of the disastrous flaws in American evangelical arguments for inerrancy.
For example, you write, "First, because all Scripture is inspired, and therefore entirely trustworthy and true, all of Scripture is useful for training, teaching, correcting, and rebuking (2Tim.3:16-17)", apparently applying the passage from Timothy to the Christian Bible as a whole. However, your use of theological language implies sufficient education for me to conclude that you already know that such an application is more wish fulfillment than exegesis. For as you know, at the time Timothy was written, the Scriptures referred to were, at most, the OT. The NT canon did not exist, and therefore could not have been included in what Paul intended to say. To claim that Paul 'really meant' to refer to the whole (as yet non-existant) Bible is pure speculation without exegetical warrant. When evangelicals pose this argument, they toss out all their normal rules of exegesis.
More than that, those who with you, "affirm that the original manuscripts of the Bible are the inspired Word of God, without error" are NOT in fact asserting an inerrant Bible. The reason is both simple and obvious: no "Bible" . . . or even Old Testament . . . has existed that was composed of "original manuscripts".
And, as you implicitly acknowledge, all copies and translations are subject to error. More than that, the discrepancies among manuscripts, which necessitate textual correction, establish the presence of ACTUAL errors in all original language manuscripts.
At this point, it's customary to rebut by pointing out all the horrible pastoral consequences that will follow if the church acknowledges that -- whatever the original, wet-ink, manuscripts may have been -- every canonical Bible has been errant. But, this is a hugely dishonest response: if the facts are that the Bible (all the Bibles that have ever existed!) are errant, then those are the facts.
To argue that the facts aren't the facts, or that they don't mean what they do mean is simply a 'pious lie' told on the theory that such lies protect God's honor and work. But, I doubt that a God who wouldn't accept deformed sheep, will be much pleased by such lies. Rather than lying about them, I suspect He would expect you to adjust your philosophical and theological presuppositions to fit the facts as they are.
There is an alternative embraced (sincerely, if naively, for all I know): some assert the inerrancy of the Textus Receptus, or else the King James Version itself. But such a doctrine requires that assertion of a prior doctrine of infallible transmission or infallible translation. Such a doctrine is not only contrary to the evidence, but can rest solely on the authority of the Church itself. Since, as a Protestant, you reject such an authority, I think you will likely find such a doctrine out of reach.
Short of that, honesty demands that you admit that -- by your own doctrine -- there neither is, nor ever has been, such a thing as an "inerrant Bible". Every single black leather Bible toted to church by sincere if mistaught evangelical church members has been errant.
Ben,
Thanks for your contributions. In reponse to your first critique, of course "scripture" in 2Timothy 3 refers to what we now call the OT. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, we here see the principle of scripture as inspired writings; that is, the nature of scripture qua scripture is here defined as "God-breathed". Hence if the NT documents are on par with the OT scriptures - in the same category - and there is impressive evidence that not only among the earliest fathers, but among the apostles themselves this was assumed (e.g., 1Ti.5:18 and 2Pe.3:15-16), then the same principle would obviously apply to these documents. In short, if the NT documents are Scripture, then they are, per 2Tim.3, God-breathed.
Regarding your second point, I'm not sure who you're critiquing, since all agree that our translations and existing manuscripts cannot be described as absolutely inerrant (with the exception of the KJV-only crowd). As noted in the paraphrase from Augustine, textual errors are real, if relatively rare, exegetical factors in the proper interpretation of Scripture. However, as many scholars have well argued, this does not render the doctrine irrelevant or inconsequential for our present copies and translations.
Post a Comment