How crucial is Biblical Inerrancy to being Reformed?

[cubanito]

I am a member of the PCA, which takes Biblical inerrancy seriously, as did Calvin et al. I am wondering wether people here believe can truly call themselves Reformed or a Calvinist while holding to a liberal view of the Bible, as for example, the PC-USA.

 

[hedrick]

As always, it depends upon what you mean by Reformed, and what viewpoint you've come to.

Does Reformed mean believing what the people who wrote the confessions believed, or following the same method? It's like seeing a group of scientists, all of whom admire Newton, but half honor him by maintaining the same beliefs and rejecting new-fangled ideas like relativity, and the other half honor him by continuing to follow the best scientific methods as he did.

For many people, including most of the PCA, being confessional means you follow the historical confessions. For others, including most of the PCUSA, it means that unlike some other traditions, we do theology as a community, and that community periodically confesses its faith, but the confessions aren't always identical to previous ones.

The original Reformation was largely a result of new Biblical scholarship, including a return to the Hebrew and Greek texts. That, plus renewed classical scholarship, cast doubt on many views that had developed during the life of the Church, but particularly during the medieval period. I believe being Reformed means that we continue to follow evidence, even if it leads us to abandon some ideas held by the Reformers. However you are a member of a denomination that found that unacceptable, and chose to maintain traditional beliefs (though not the same traditional beliefs as the Catholics, obviously).

I don't see how either of us can claim to own the name Reformed, since one can only guess how the Reformers would have reacted to current critical thought. I can only say that they accepted and used critical thought as it existed at their time, and that Calvin did not seem to use inerrancy in the modern sense. But really, it's hard to put historical figures honestly on one side or the other of questions that they didn't face.

 

[hedrick]

For a very interesting discussion of this topic, see John Perry : Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate: How Modern Philosophy Shaped the Evangelical View of Scripture - Quodlibet Journal. It argues (correctly, I think) that Luther and Calvin believed in inerrancy, but that they still accepted that there were what we would call errors. That paper gives only a few examples. Throughout Calvin's commentaries other examples can be cited. Yet there is no question that he believed the Bible to be without error. The issue is what he meant by without error. The paper argues that the meaning of inerrancy changed during the 20th Cent., and that this change is a mistake.

I should note a caution about his approach. It is common to locate modern inerrancy in the 19th and 20th Cent. Yet a detailed history of the interpretation of Scripture (sorry, I don't have the citation handy) notes that portions of the approach go back earlier, to the generation following the Reformers. The initial version may not have the Cartesian implications that Perry (correctly, I think) criticizes, but there are similarities.

One implication of Perry's analysis is that inerrancy is part of an attempt to deny the influence of tradition on Biblical interpretation. His proposed solution is to admit that there is an element of tradition involved in interpretation. But as I understand it, this argument goes back earlier than the 20th Cent. Soon after the Reformation began, Catholics started criticizing Protestants by saying that as soon as you start criticizing Holy Tradition, you have no fixed ground on which to stand. One Protestant response was that if you are just sufficiently literal in your interpretation, you can avoid the human element and get agreed upon interpretations of Scripture. Perry's proposed resolution, which admits to a human element in interpretation, would involve rejecting or at least modifying this basic Protestant reaction to the Catholic criticism. Even though the recent hard-core form of inerrancy is 20th Cent, something like it seems to be implied as part of the program of avoiding the human element in interpreting Scripture. So I think any rejection of detailed inerrancy is going to require us to find a way to cope with human judgement in interpreting Scripture.

I would argue that the attempt to remove human judgement is impossible to begin with. But I think confessional theology -- including Reformed theology -- is actually in a good position to help manage the human element. Confessional theology tries to strike a balance between inerrant tradition and individualism. It says that we practice theology as a community, but that community can be critiqued by individuals, based on Scripture. Individuals covenant to operate as members of the community. Our current interpretations aren't inerrant -- they are always open to challenge, but those challenges are made to the community. We don't just go off as individuals each doing our thing. The community as a whole confesses its faith.

I realize this isn't good enough for some people. They want guaranteed truth. I fear they aren't going to get it. And in the attempt they're going to get something less helpful than if they admit to having uncertainty, but work with an approach that tries to manage it.

At any rate, I would argue that confessional traditions such as the Reformed are particularly suited for approaches that don't use detailed inerrancy.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I am a member of the PCA, which takes Biblical inerrancy seriously, as did Calvin et al. I am wondering wether people here believe can truly call themselves Reformed or a Calvinist while holding to a liberal view of the Bible, as for example, the PC-USA.

Great topic, thank you for bringing it up.

I believe Biblical inerrancy is of great importance, and I believe every Christian should take it seriously, especially Protestants because we hold to Sola Scriptura, and especially Calvinists because our doctrines are supported or proof text'ed by so much Scripture. In other words, of what avail is an errant proof text?

While I do not believe biblical enerrancy is a doctrine necessary to salvation, it is the doctrine which effects all other doctrine, if not directly, indirectly.

Additionally an errantist view of Scripture necessary leads to weaker doctrine. Additionally it weakens the defense of the faith and the biblical view of truth (including doctrine). It's a slippery slope, an open flood gate.

To the question directly, no, a person's stance on biblical inerrancy is not THE test of a true Calvinist or Reformed, but for errantists, it is quite a damaging blow to one of our Reformation distinctives, namely Sola Scriptura.

For illustration, picture a metropolitan water dam, with a hairline crack, when ignored and or approved, gradually increases in size over time, until eventually the pressure of the waters working against the crack causing the dam to burst, and the waters it once held back, overcome the dam to the point the dam no longer resembles a dam.

 

[cubanito]

To be fair, I should make my own view clearer. I used to be an agnostic and became a believer when I tried to find contradictions or scientific errors in the Bible 30+ years ago. While I believe some Reformed doctrines square well with the Bible, they are of far less importance to me than the Bible itself. All of the historic confessions make it abundantly clear they are secondary sources based on the Bible. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would even bother to maintain a superstructure of systematic theology on a bedrock of sand. I was not attempting to start a debate, simply curious to see who here actually held to the sola scriptura as opposed to sola) what crumbs modern scientific mythology allows me to keep of) scriptura. I will try to find time to read the article, but what little I know of the Reformers, they were Bible believers FIRST, and everything else a distant second. Clearly Biblical inerrancy is NOT a requirement either for salvation nor a good understanding of the Gospel. My favorite non-Biblical author, CS Lewis did not hold to inerrancy. I realize I sound very polemic, and yet I am trying not to be.

JR

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Biblical inerrancy is critical. Without it all doctrine is conjecture.

 

[cubanito]

OK, read the posted abstract. It states" For some conservatives this eventually became a test of orthodoxy; that theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin did not share this view reveals the force of modernity's influence." but provides no backup, just a flat footed statement. Perhaps there is some other source in the body of the text or another article? What I have read of Luther and Calvin seem to be from men who held to Biblical inerrancy.

I found "modern philosophy" including the theory of evolution to be scientifically impossible long before I picked up a Bible. Just try to square PV=nRT with the formation of a star or a planet. No such mathematical model is available. Gases in a vacuum expand, especially when heated, especially if rotating. My background is heaviest in Biochemistry. There are so many reasons why life could not posibly arise from non-life, or that mutations could not add up to a new species that it took more faith to believe in evolution than to become an agnostic. I am going to shut up now, because I really am debating and that was not my intent. I will go back to my Fundamentalist ghetto.

JR

 

[hedrick]

I'm not as familiar with Luther. There is a large debate on Calvin's position. The problem is that while he said things that sound like inerrancy, in his actual exegesis, he admitted minor errors, Paul making mistakes in quoting the OT and even having questionable interpretations of it, that the Sermon on the Mount is an editorial creation, and his treatment of creation is pretty non-literal. The upshot of this is that while he said he believed in inerrancy, I believe it was a looser definition than sometimes used today.

John Perry's paper, which I cited above, maintains that the definition of errancy got more literal during the 20th Cent, but that it is moderating now.

There is, of course, a difficulty in citing 16th Cent authors about 21st Cent questions. Calvin used the best critical scholarship of his time, and he was quite willing to reject current interpretations of Scripture. We can only guess how he would react to more recent Biblical criticism. Personally, I think he would follow the best scholarship, and thus would accept a moderate critical view.

 

[desmalia]

I found "modern philosophy" including the theory of evolution to be scientifically impossible long before I picked up a Bible. Just try to square PV=nRT with the formation of a star or a planet. No such mathematical model is available. Gases in a vacuum expand, especially when heated, especially if rotating. My background is heaviest in Biochemistry. There are so many reasons why life could not posibly arise from non-life, or that mutations could not add up to a new species that it took more faith to believe in evolution than to become an agnostic. I am going to shut up now, because I really am debating and that was not my intent. I will go back to my Fundamentalist ghetto.

JR

Ghetto indeed. What a mess that forum is. I for one would appreciate a thread discussing the whole evolution issue with your input, JR, especially with your scientific education. It's such a huge issue these days as the TE movement is working so hard to infiltrate the church. I'd suggest starting a thread in the Fundie forum, but there are so very few actual fundies that frequent it anymore (and several, well, um, interesting charact... oh, never mind). I suspect such a thread would have much better, more biblically grounded discussion in Semper.

 

[bsd058]

Ghetto indeed. What a mess that forum is. I for one would appreciate a thread discussing the whole evolution issue with your input, JR, especially with your scientific education. It's such a huge issue these days as the TE movement is working so hard to infiltrate the church. I'd suggest starting a thread in the Fundie forum, but there are so very few actual fundies that frequent it anymore (and several, well, um, interesting charact... oh, never mind). I suspect such a thread would have much better, more biblically grounded discussion in Semper.

Ya, I tried to start a thread on Theistic Evolution being heretical. Didn't get too far. There were Roman Catholics and other denominations stating that Christ only died for our spirits. Or that death didn't ultimately enter the world through Adam's sin. There were variations of whether death entered humankind at that point but had always existed within animals. Simple errors where the Scripture would correct them; but since none had a good foundation in the Scriptures, I decided to just move on. lol. Unless they have a solid base in the Scriptures, it's difficult to reason with them. They have a completely different epistemology than that of reformed folks.

My basic argument was this (and I still hold to it):

1) If Theistic Evolution is true, then death existed before Adam sinned.

2) If death existed before Adam sinned, then death is not the consequence of sin, but is merely a natural occurrence. (which already contradicts the Scripture in that the wages of sin is death)

3) If death is not the consequence of sin, then Jesus' death did not pay the consequence of sin.

Therefore, 4) If theistic evolution is true, then Jesus' death did not pay the consequences for our sin.

This compromises the Gospel, though, which depends upon a substitutionary atonement. That Christ had to die in order to pay for our sin. If the wages of sin isn't death, then how could our substitute pay for our sins with his death?

I find it also contradicts the resurrection, because if death is not the wages of sin, then Christ didn't need to die for our sins. If he didn't need to die for our sins, then he didn't need to be resurrected either. In fact, the resurrection depends on the necessity of Christ's death first, since according to Paul (1 Cor 15:14-17), if Christ wasn't raised, then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins. But if Christ wasn't first killed, then he couldn't be raised, either.

Therefore, Theistic Evolution, in my opinion, is a direct attack on the gospel of Christ.

 

[JM]

Richard Muller is quoted in "Verbatim" (vol. 10, iss. 1),

"In addition, the Protestant orthodox held, as a matter of doctrinal conviction stated in the locus de Scriptura sacra of their theological systems, the providential preservation of the text throughout history."

Biblical inerrancy is critical. Without it all doctrine is conjecture.

I agree and confess the scriptures to be,

"immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them." (London Baptist Confession 1689 article 1:8)

 

[Eddie L]

Hedrick,

Your posts about Calvin's view on inerrancy seem to mix definitions. How a thing is interpreted has little to do with inerrancy. Inerrancy deals with the original manuscripts and their intent. In that area, there should be little doubt as to Calvin's view.

If we are not going to rely on the Scriptures as our authority for truth, then all any community of believers has done is to recreate their own version of Rome. If Sola Scriptura isn't true, then we owe Rome and the Pope a big apology.

 

[JM]

If Sola Scriptura isn't true, then we owe Rome and the Pope a big apology.

And if our locus de Scriptura sacra stated in article 1:8 isn't true...lets return to Rome.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think physical death is the penalty for the fall. As I read his Genesis commentary, Calvin doesn't either. If that's what was meant, then Adam and Eve would have died immediately after sinning, since the text says "on the day you eat of it." My sense, as Calvin's, is that man was never intended to live forever on earth, and that it's the manner of leaving it that is the problem. Calvin suggests that without the fall we would have entered heaven whole. The fact that we die like animals may in fact be the punishment. God never promised that the animals wouldn't die. It's not a punishment for them because they're not conscious. Calvin speculates that we would have entered heaven body and soul. This is just one possibility.

In fact the whole interpretation is just one possibility. My point is simply that there are reasonable interpretations of the text that are consistent with death before any humans were around.

I note that salvation doesn't keep us from physical death anyway, so if physical death is the punishment for sin, Jesus hasn't reversed it.

 

[bsd058]

I don't think physical death is the penalty for the fall. As I read his Genesis commentary, Calvin doesn't either. If that's what was meant, then Adam and Eve would have died immediately after sinning, since the text says "on the day you eat of it." My sense, as Calvin's, is that man was never intended to live forever on earth, and that it's the manner of leaving it that is the problem. Calvin suggests that without the fall we would have entered heaven whole. The fact that we die like animals may in fact be the punishment. God never promised that the animals wouldn't die. Calvin speculates that we would have entered heaven body and soul. This is just one possibility.

In fact the whole interpretation is just one possibility. My point is simply that there are reasonable interpretations of the text that are consistent with death before any humans were around.

I note that salvation doesn't keep us from physical death anyway, so if physical death is the punishment for sin, Jesus hasn't reversed it.

I think we should reconsider this, then.

Calvin may have been a wonderful commentator and theologian, but no one would claim him to be infallible.

I don't want to presume I'm a better commentator. I wouldn't dare. I just would disagree with him based upon my understanding of salvation and what Paul says about the importance of the resurrection.

I contend that those who are saved do live forever, though they die in this life, they will be raised again physically never to experience death again because of the fact of the substitutionary atonement. If the substitutionary atonement didn't involve the physical death and resurrection of Christ, then in what manner was he our substitute? In what manner will we be resurrected with him? Will we not have physical bodies at all? I think this misses the fundamental doctrine of the resurrection. That's why I believe that physical death (as well as spiritual) was the wage of our sins.

I also think that God meant that Adam and Eve would know that they would surely die. Though they died spiritually, they didn't die physically until later, but they could be sure of that future death because God said, "In the day you eat of it, you will surely die," meaning they could be sure they would die after they ate of it, whether or not that death would happen immediately.

Like I said, though, if death (in general, both physical and spiritual) wasn't the wage of sin, then Jesus' physical death and resurrection weren't necessary for salvation. Paul said that it was necessary.

I'd have to read more about what Calvin said, though.

this is my analysis this far. And I think it stands.

On top of this...please see the 1st canon of Carthage...Pelagius was condemned for holding that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned. Not saying councils are inerrant.

 

[JM]

Eternal life is not in Law keeping but in Christ.

Calvin was right.

 

[bsd058]

Eternal life is not in Law keeping but in Christ.

It is not. I agree.

Is is the operative word, though.

We're discussing the past.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm open to being wrong, though. Perhaps in my studies I'll change my mind.

 

[bsd058]

I don't think physical death is the penalty for the fall. As I read his Genesis commentary, Calvin doesn't either.

I read something interesting. I really should read Calvin for myself though. See here for full article: Did death occur before the Fall? | BioLogos

John Calvin, however, suggested that Adam’s sin caused the abrupt painful death that we experience today, a wrenching apart of the physical and spiritual aspects of humans. Calvin seems to have thought that if Adam had not sinned, a more gentle kind of physical death or “passing” from life into life would have occurred: “Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.”

Interesting

 

[JM]

I would say Adam's law keeping would have allowed him to remain in the garden but not given him eternal life. He still needed the righteousness of Christ imputed to receive eternal life. I understand the covenant of works given to Adam was to cause the fall and to prove Adam needed righteousness...pointing him to Christ. The moral Law is a reflection of the perfection of God and only a perfect being can be be morally perfect. Man is a creature and can never be perfect. That would mean all men are cursed by the Law.

The everlasting covenant of grace is “…an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” Jer. 32:40 Jesus Christ is our great high priest (Heb. 3:1, 4:14) who prays for us (John 17, 17:9; Rom. 8:43) and lives to do so.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 explains, “This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.” (Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)

bsd, are you suggesting that if Adam had obeyed the laws given to him in the garden he would have merited eternal life...without the eternal or everlasting covenant?

 

[Eddie L]

bsd, are you suggesting that if Adam had obeyed the laws given to him in the garden he would have merited eternal life?

JM, I think you're taking BSD too far. He is not suggesting that Adam's righteousness was possible (in that he was perfect enough), but that death was the consequence of Adam's Fall. I believe BSD is talking of Adam not sinning in the hypothetical sense. We know that if Adam had been the Law Keeper and not eaten from the tree, he would have eaten from the tree of life and been, in essence, our representative. We know that would not have been possible for Adam to accomplish, but had he been able to, death would not have been necessary.