Inerrancy: Thursday’s Questions

19 Responses to Inerrancy: Thursday’s Questions

1. Alan says:

   September 15, 2011 at 6:57 am

   First, I don’t like Vic Vadney’s attributing motives to the GHF writers. I seriously doubt their goal was to undermine the authority of scripture. Whether that is the effect could be debated.

   I am sympathetic to what I perceive to be the underlying motivation of the Apologetics Press. I think they were concerned that if we don’t treat the Bible as a perfect document, people will simply reject parts they don’t like, placing themselves in judgment over scripture. That is a valid concern,and we see people do this with alarming frequency — everything from denying the passages about sexual immorality, to passages about heaven and hell, to denying the resurrection of Jesus. But that is a slippery slope argument, and that kind of argument can be a logical fallacy. The extreme consequence isn’t always inevitable.

   We won’t have a perfect answer to every alleged error of scripture in this life. I’m comfortable with that. We shouldn’t obsess with trying to answer them all. Our first priority should be to understand the message and to respond in obedience to the commands and moral teachings. That’s why God gave them.

   But it’s an unjustified leap of logic to say that because there are (allegedly) chronology problems in scripture, (or misspelled words, or whatever…) therefore the commands and moral teachings can be questioned, or that the miracles didn’t actually occur. I’m satisfied that the God who created the universe has preserved his message and that we have access to it unambiguously.
2. Jim Ayars says:

   September 15, 2011 at 10:33 am

   My answer is “None of the above.” This is because I believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. This includes the matter of inspiration and authority. The Bible not only states that it is inspired, but also shows us by its structures and literary forms how that inspiration works.

   The problem with the doctrine of Inerrancy is that it is based upon an assumption not found in, nor supported by, the Bible itself. What the Bible shows us is that it is not the words of the Bible which are inspired, but its authors. The Holy Spirit works upon the minds and hearts of the writers as they interact with God and His actions in history. They are not God’s penmen, nor God’s pens, but His witnesses, and they testify to what they witness according to the cultures, thought patterns, worldviews within which they live.

   The basis of their authority is not inspiration, but their focus — the Bible is our sole window by which to see and know Jesus Christ, both in His pre-existence and Lordship (Old Testament), and in His incarnation, life, death, resurrection, intercession and return (New Testament). He is the final, inerrant, infallible authority, and the Bible’s writers derive their authority through their direct interaction and relationship with Him.

   It is also my view that inspiration continues to the present time. The Holy Spirit is also sovereign in the matter of copyists of the original manuscripts, and the matter of the translation of those documents into our vernacular languages. He also operates in the clear preaching of the Word of God, and in the response of the hearers of the Word. Inspiration functions through this whole process.

   With this point of view, inerrancy is irrelevant.

   One more objection I have to the inerrancy view is this: if we follow it logically, it actually undermines the authority of Scripture. This is because inerrency is ascribed only to the original autographs. This means, then, that the sacred Word which we now possess and treasure is NOT inerrant, that errors have crept into the Word in such a way that we do not know exactly what God’s Word really is in its original form. This s0-called “High View” of Scripture does not really exalt it at all, but rather undermines it, lowers it, creates unnecessary doubts regarding it.

   God and heaven alone are infallible, inerrant. The writers of Scripture, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, testify to His greatness, and exalt His Son as our Savior and Lord. As such, the Bible alone is sufficient in and of itself to teach us everything we need to know about Him, His love, and His will.

   Blessings In Him in whom we are complete,
3. Bruce Morton says:

   September 15, 2011 at 11:01 am

   David Himes wrote this morn: “Sometimes I feel we miss the point of Scriptures. According to Jesus, we think we’ll find eternal life in Scripture, but, in fact, we’ll only find eternal life in Jesus.” Certainly, David is on target regarding the threat of Bibliolatry. But I hope he sees that we also face the opposite threat as well. If the Gospels are not trustworthy, why do we even believe in Jesus? And if we do, what do we believe and how do we follow?

   L. Michael White (brother in Christ and Professor of Religion, University of Texas) illustrates the issue well. He is the author of 1) From Jesus to Christianity, How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith (New York: HarperCollins Pub., 2004) and 2) an essay in Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).

   EPHESOS, METROPOLIS OF ASIA
   He believes the Acts of the Apostles includes multiple flaws. He writes that, “Using Acts uncritically as evidence for the social and religious situation in Ephesos during the midfirst century will prove misleading at the very least.” (Ephesos, 36)

   FROM JESUS TO CHRISTIANITY
   Michael White talks little about Jesus, his death, and his resurrection in his chapter “The Historical Figure of Jesus.” Most of his attention is given to his proposal regarding how the Gospels were composed. He writes in the chapter’s conclusion: “Ultimately, the Gospels are stories about the growth of belief in Jesus.” (From Jesus to Christianity, 116).

   Now before any of us are inclined to say, “Well, that sounds right,” White also writes the below:

   “There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished.” (From Jesus to Christianity, 3-4).

   “Even those Gospel materials that clearly profess to come from original disciples, such as John’s Gospel claims (John 21:24) were nonetheless written down much, much later.” (From Jesus to Christianity, 111) However, he is certain enough of their accuracy that at times he makes a point from them. He believes Jesus uses ancient curse formulas in his speech (From Jesus to Christianity, 55). But how does he know?

   “In other words, the Gospels as we now have them are not direct or firsthand biographies of Jesus. Nor do they operate under modern conceptions of writing history. Instead, they are early attempts to tell the story of Jesus for a particular audience in a particular context or social location. To be sure, the historical figure of Jesus stands behind the stories, but the stories are nonetheless removed from that historical figure in important ways.” (From Jesus to Christianity, 116)

   So much for John 21:24 (despite what White writes)…. So, why should Michael White (or anyone else) believe that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened? Why not embrace the notion of Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries (international bestseller)? They believe Jesus was a non-historical Gnostic myth. Those are the questions I asked myself after soaking up From Jesus to Christianity.

   Now compare Michael White’s suggestions to God’s Holy Fire

   GOD’S HOLY FIRE
   Ken Cukrowski, Mark Hamilton and James Thompson tackle the subject of Scripture and inerrancy in their section “Toward an Understanding of Inerrancy” (36-44). They write:

   “Additionally, one must ask whether or not inerrancy even applies to minor narrative details.” (40)

   “Sometimes the narrative does not correspond to the historical record.” (40) They suggest the example of Quirinius, Governor of Syria.

   “These problems are not insoluble. More information might actually resolve many of these difficulties or future research might clarify specific discrepancies between the biblical narratives and our knowledge of secular history. Often the answer involves the very simple matter of the genre of the writing. The ancient writers worked with standards that are not our own.” (41)

   So, the conclusions of the broadly-embraced historical-critical method have found the true meaning of “god-breathed?” God’s Holy Fire does talk about 2 Timothy 3:16: “The focus of the passage is on the usefulness of Scripture for transforming and equippng the person, not on the divine origin of Scripture (see Chapter 1).” (37) The writers attempt to ensure that Scripture is “inspired” later in the paragraph, but their first sentence sets the tone for all that follows. The separation of usefulness from origin represents nothing less than a remarkable statement — especially since Paul begins with origin before turning to value.

   No, I am not announcing motive. But I believe the above does justify great concern. I think that is enough to get the posts flowing further….

   In Christ,
   Bruce Morton
   Katy, Texas
4. Alabama John says:

   September 15, 2011 at 12:14 pm

   As long as we present the Bible as being hard to understand and it takes a high education to do so, many will simply ignore it. as above their education level.

   We have churches on every main corner and most disagree with all the others but use and are following in their eyes the same Bible.

   On the other hand, to present the Bible as the God News of Jesus and as a simple book of love of God for us will bring folks to Christ.

   One makes us but a servant, the other feeds our egos.
5. Alan says:

   September 15, 2011 at 12:26 pm

   On the other hand, to present the Bible as the God News of Jesus and as a simple book of love of God for us will bring folks to Christ.

   Yes but that is not sufficient for maturity.

   Heb 5:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.
   Heb 5:12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
   Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
   Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

   and

   2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
   2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

   A church leader can’t just discard the more difficult teachings. God gave them for the benefit of the church and we are not free to decide we don’t need them.
6. Brent says:

   September 15, 2011 at 1:12 pm

   I’m not sure this adds to the discussion but here goes:

   First thought – I have always belived that I do not have to explain what I or someone else perceives to be errors or problems with the biblical text. But that instead . . . as time marches on and our understanding of history and languages improve . . . and more cities are dug out of the sand and so forth . . . that the “perception” will be changed into complete understanding.

   Second thought – I simply don’t have to worry about these perceptions of inaccuracies or errors because God is his own interpretor and that if needed . . . He will make it plain. That is . . . if God cares to. That sounds (and looks) strange. But I think it gets to the nitty gritty of what we are talking about. In other words . . . God doesn’t think we need to have perfect answers to our endless questions to have the kind of faith He is looking for.

   Third thought – God gave us the scriptures to lead us to faith. I do not believe there are any roadblocks to faith found in his Word, but rather . . . the roadblocks are the result of doubt in the heart.
7. CyclingDude says:

   September 15, 2011 at 2:28 pm

   Brent,

   Good thoughts.

   There are many reasons to believe that Jesus is the Messiah outside of the “trustworthiness” of the Gospel accounts. And most believers throughout history have not even had them available to read or study, including the first century believers. And even if they did, it was likely passed around so much that study was not possible. Someone had to tell them the story (message), they believed the story, and the Holy Spirit guided them to truth and maturity. At least, that’s the only viable conclusion I can come to. Does that discount our need to read and study the written accounts we have so readily available in modern times? Of course not…it’s a huge blessing obviously. But, I would hope that our faith is not dependant on either the scientific viability of the text or the possibility that some factual flaw exists within the text. I’ve known several Christians that had no scripture, became believers and grew to have a level of maturity that I envy and likely will never achieve. Were they excited when a Bible became available? Absolutely. They cherish their copy like most of us would a warehouse of gold. Would their faith be impacted if tomorrow it was gone or someone proved to them that there was a mistaken fact included in the text? Not a chance.
8. Terry says:

   September 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm

   Jim wrote, ” What the Bible shows us is that it is not the words of the Bible which are inspired, but its authors.”

   Actually, it’s the reverse. The authors are not inspired. The Scriptures themselves are inspired. “All Scripture is breathed out by God…” (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).
9. Alabama John says:

   September 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm

   There shouldn’t be any difficult teachings. We make them difficult, not God.

   Wanting it to be exclusive and difficult was the downfall of the Jews. They couldn’t accept the simple gospel.

   Even the apostles were simple fishermen, not scholars and that is who Jesus picked to know the most about him.

   As we teach, so shall we be judged. I see that as a warning and a promise.
10. Alan says:

    September 15, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    There shouldn’t be any difficult teachings. We make them difficult, not God.

    Peter begs to differ. (2 Pet 3:16)
11. Alabama John says:

    September 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Alan,
    we wrest, unto our own destruction.
12. Alan says:

    September 15, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Alan,
    we wrest, unto our own destruction

    That’s a non sequitur. There can be (in fact, there are) difficult passages without someone having to “wrest” them.
13. Alabama John says:

    September 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    In this case, Peter is saying we wrest Pauls words to our destruction.

    Anyway, it shows we are doing exactly what I am against.

    That may be your point as you have “sucked me in to wrest with you”.
14. Jerry Starling says:

    September 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Somehow, the simple things to understand are some of the hardest teachings to follow. When we master those simple things, we can then move on to the more difficult ones. For example, how well do you do with this one?

    Do everything without complaining or arguing. (Philippians 2:14, NIV)

    Not really hard to understand is it? How about being difficult to practice? Consider that this comes just after Paul’s great hymn to the greatness of the humility of Jesus and subsequent exaltation (Philippians 2:5-11) AND just after he charged us to work out our salvation as God works within us “to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippans 2:12-13).

    How do I measure up to the exhortation to do all things without complaining or arguing? Can’t really say that I do very well on either count! How about you?

    Jerry
15. HistoryGuy says:

    September 15, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    While I disagree with Apologetics Press, GHF, and the Chicago statement because they are all working from the same post-Reformation protect-the-bible-from-liberal-scholars bias (true liberal theology, not the RM liberal/conservative issue], I appreciate their high regard for scripture and thier attempt to defend it.

    Yet, I believe that inerrancy [defined their way] is not only a movement that failed to accomplished what it was fighting to protect, where as other means can, but it became a point of division amongst the group (like us) who has a high-divine view of scripture.

    Has anyone stopped to consider that inspired oral teaching chronologically preceded the writing of New Testament scriptures?

    This fact does not diminish the written record, but merely reveals a Christian community embracing the gospel, baptism, Eucharist, and simple liturgy, as divine truth, before it was written down. It is as if some think the written canonized Bible fail out of the sky on a sunny Sunday day in June 96AD (I’m using humor).

    Even when discussing that God guided and preserved it through history, it still requires people to interact with that history. Should this not cause us to reevaluate the current inerrancy discussion and critical views of the written text, in light of the patrstics, who dealt with 2000 years ago?
16. CyclingDude says:

    September 15, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    HistoryGuy,

    I think your view is held by the majority of conservative (in the true sense of the word, non-liberal) Christian groups. At least within the several I interact with. It’s my perspective that most practicing Christians understand that the historical evidence supporting Jesus, have no doubt the validity of the NT cannon is solid, and high regard for scripture is not in question. They generally understand the historical facts around scripture origins and know that oral traditions were involved and have no issues. They study scripture with the purpose of learning and growing to become more like Jesus, not to defend legal minutiae. I find it’s primarily a CoC and Baptist fear that some argument may come from academia that causes the validity of scripture to come into question resulting in a mass of “true” believers leaving the “true” faith to begin using their own relative principles to decide what is right and wrong. I took a look through the AP site today (big mistake…) and decided that perhaps other groups would be better suited to provide scholarly arguments to defend the truth of Scripture. I would think that a high regard for scripture is going to be short lived if we begin proposing the possibility that the phrase “given to much wine” in I Timothy refers to “liquid gluttony” (Paul really was requiring moderation in the intake of nonalcoholic liquids). In other words, to be a leader in the church you are required to limit your water and ice tea intake each day. How do you get to the point where that you begin reaching such possible conclusions? Publishing those types of “apologetic” arguments has to inflict far more damage to scriptural integrity then any claim that the Bible contains errors.
17. Jim Ayars says:

    September 16, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Terry quoted me: ” What the Bible shows us is that it is not the words of the Bible which are inspired, but its authors.”

    He then commented: “Actually, it’s the reverse. The authors are not inspired. The Scriptures themselves are inspired. “All Scripture is breathed out by God…” (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).”

    He misses my point. I stated that the Bible itself SHOWS us how it was inspired. And Peter described the process: “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21 ESV)

    The result of these “men” speaking “as THEY were carried along by the Holy Spirit” is the inspired Word of God as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16. Inspiration acts upon the men, which results in them writing the living and active Word of God, “which by the Gospel is preached to us.” (1 Peter 1:22-25)

    We see this process exemplified in the Synoptic Gospels — three writers, acted upon by the Holy Spirit, gave us three similar, yet different, presentations of the life and teachings of Jesus. The similarities are based upon their witness to the one Messiah/Savior, Jesus; the differences are the result of their unique personalities and purposes while writing as they were acted upon by the Holy Spirit. To say, as you attempt to do, that it is NOT the men who are inspired, but the Words, creates an artificial distinction which is not supported by what we actually see in the structure of the Word of God itself. Inspiration acts upon the men, who then testify to what they see in the acts of God, thereby giving us the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

    The miracle of inspiration gives us God’s Word through the filters of the individual personalities who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wrote it, without in any way submerging, hiding, or altering their uniqueness as elect followers of God through Jesus Christ.

    John Calvin, in his doctrine of the Testimonium Spiritus Sancti Internum, recognized this. The Holy Spirit acts upon chosen persons, who under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit write the Word of God; the Holy Spirit then speaks through that written Word of God to those who hear it or read it; He finally acts upon the hearts of the hearers/readers, preparing them to receive that Word through faith. (Romans 10:17; Ephesians 1:13-14)

    What I add to this divine inspiration chain or process is the copyists and the translators, who also act under the providential guidance of the Holy Spirit, who continues to speak to us through their work.

    Thus, inspiration includes the men upon whom the Spirit acted, the writings which resulted from the Spirit’s action upon them, the preaching of their writings through pastors and teachers, and the responses in faith of the hearers/readers.

    I say again, inerrancy is irrelevant to this whole process. The Bible is the sole, authoritative conduit of the will and Word of the infallible, inerrant God who has chosen to speak to mankind through fallible, sinful men despite the weaknesses and inadequacies of their languages, their copying mistakes, and their multitudes of translations, to other fallible, sinful men for the sake of the salvation of all who hear God’s voice speaking authoritatively to them through His Word and believe it. (John 17:20ff)

    The Holy Spirit is sovereign, acting upon the writers, their written testimony, the copyists, the translators, the pastors/teachers, and, last but not least, the hearers/readers. Inspiration encompasses all of it.

    Blessings in Him in whom we are complete.
18. abasnar says:

    September 16, 2011 at 12:39 am

    I think, Bruce made some good observations. Historcal critical thinking is creeping is, as son as we open the door to it only a fraction of an inch. And once it got a foothold, it’s methodology works like leaven – needing just a generation or two until once respected bible-schools are no longer to be recommended. And from there all “institutional churches” get their “food” …

    Alexander
19. Jim Ayars says:

    September 16, 2011 at 1:08 am

    I neglected to mention that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit also works sovereignly in the action of the Body of Christ, His Church, which, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognizes the voice of God in the writings of God’s inspired writers. The community of faith recognizes the authority of the living Word as exhibited in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets.

    Thus, the inspiration process includes the Holy Spirit’s ACTING upon the chosen apostles/prophets, GUIDING the writing of those apostles/prophets, the RECOGNITION of the authority of those writings by the Body of Christ, the COPYING and TRANSMISSION of those writings, the TRANSLATION of those writings into our vernaculars, the PREACHING based upon those writings, and the HEARING OF FAITH in the hearts of those to whom God is speaking authoritatively through those writings.

    Blessings in Him in whom we are complete.

Comments are closed.