infallibility & inerrancy

[rmwilliamsll]

Moving from:
http://www.christianforums.com/t869911&page=7

start with adam149's posting #64
read to mine at #68 where i wrote

i beg to differ with you on the historicity of the English term inerrant.

Warfield is perhaps it's strongest defenders, although i wouldn't quibble if you thought the Hodge's. However before them the term is consistently infallible not inerrant. Since the term inerrant has become aligned with the "inerrancy of the parts" while "infalliblity of the whole" as in infallible in matters of faith and practice, there is a define difference between the terms as currently used.

i would be interested in pre-Warfield defenses of inerrancy that you are aware of, especially if they use infallible and inerrant in different ways.

it is not the topic of this thread however. perhaps we can take this aside to a new thread.

1. i'm bringing it here and not to hermeneutics forum, frankly because i don't care at this point except for the historical Reformed viewpoints.

2. it is part of my current study on hermeneutics so i'd appreciate references so i can follow up on them.

3. what i wrote is actually an issue i brought up at the men's Bible study at church on _How to Study the Bible_ by John MacArthur taught by the Pastor . (dont take this as a recommendation for the book, i don't like it, but that is another discussion)

pg 8.

The Bible is infallible
The Bible, in its entirety, has no mistakes.

The Bible is inerrant
The Bible is not only infallible in total, but inerrant in its parts.

I believe he is quoting/paraphrasing someone, but i don't know who/whom.

---
So, what does our confession say:

Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

...

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

from: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html

please note: our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof

it is my current viewpoint, which i am working on, that inerrant is 'club talk', in particular emerging from the genius of Warfield and appropriated by the Fundamentalists in their battles with classic Protestant liberalism in the 1920's. It is a technical term which attempts to fold a complex discussion into a single word and then to 'hold people's feet to the fire' and use it to separate the sides in an overly simplistic manner.

Can we try to flesh out the last 100 years or so of Reformed theology's use of the term? please....

---
post posting edit

research links:
a surprisingly interesting liberal one-person essay at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/inner1.htm

a google search string to follow:
http://www.google.com/search?q=The+...=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet&start=10&sa=N

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i talked to my Pastor after church yesterday about the issue.
it's been an ongoing concern, as you can see for a number of months.

i'm posting a section of my blog that i just sent to him, nice reading.


on inerrancy


IM at BHT does another good essay:
I'm Not A Conservative Christian
Dare I say it? I don't need Rush, Sean or O'Reilly to tell me what's important.
by Michael Spencer
at: http://www.internetmonk.com/conchris.html
via vector: http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/02/019858.html


http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancyTOC_Gerstner.html
the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
from: http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancy3_Gerstner.html#7
It teaches us that Bible writers themselves may have been laboring under erroneous impressions without this being normative instruction for us. Suppose they did think of a three-storied universe, which was the common opinion in their day, the Bible does not err unless it teaches such as a divine revelation of truth. In fact, by showing that the writers may have personally entertained ideas now antiquated it reveals its own historical authenticity without its normative authenticity suffering.
via vector: http://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=48732&Main=48034#Post48732


IM on some topics i've had to face lately:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/02/019857.html
Literary genre is the great ignored fact of the Bible that inerrantists seem unable to feel good about. They toss out "allegory" as a straw man, but if we were more accurate, the list would include EVERY kind of literary genre in the book: proverb, drama, journal, lament, imprecation, praise song, parable, didactic, story of origin, genealogy, poetry, apocalyptic, novella, and on and on and on. For some reason, the "truthfulness" of anything other than "flat" narration or eyewitness reporting really bugs a lot of inerrantists.

from: http://www.internetmonk.com/creation.html
The real shock these days is that I am not a young earth creationist. Among my evangelical friends, there is a solid majority of CRI types. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind videos are more popular than HBO. If Ken Ham builds his creationist museum in Northern Kentucky, there will be a full-time bus route created to accommodate the field trips from our school. Hugh Ross is accursed among my brethren. Young earth creationism is the majority report, and even my children are on the other team from dad.

When my fellow faculty members hear me say I am not a young earth creationist, they literally shake their heads in astonished disbelief. They know I am not a liberal, and that I am conservative and orthodox in my Christianity. How can I, they muse, not take the Bible literally on matters like the age of the earth? How can I not see that young earth creationism is the God-honoring, Bible believing position? How did I ever get duped into believing- as they wrongly assume I do- the lies of the evolutionists?

Students who take me for Bible have generally already been through the creationist curriculum in other classes. Their reactions range from curious to incredulous. They are surprised that I, the minister, preacher and Bible teacher, do not approach Genesis in the same way their science teachers do. I explain that Christians have never required agreement on these issues, and that reasonable interpretation of Genesis allows a variety of positions on the hermeneutics of the early chapters of Genesis. I am always saddened that they see this disagreement as inappropriate, and I work hard to say that the Creationist position, while it is not my position, is completely acceptable as a way of interpreting the Bible. (I hope my co-workers reading this essay will know that I have never demeaned creationism in any way, though I am willing to critique it as a method of interpreting Genesis.)
...
This is a method of Biblical interpretation where a few questions will quickly determine where one stands. How old is the earth? Was there death before Adam? Do you believe in a world wide flood? Were there dinosaurs on the ark? Any number of these questions draw lines in the sand for the young earthers. I am sorry to say that I cannot think of any division in Christianity- Calvinist/Arminan, Catholic/Protestant, Pentecostal/Cessationist, Seeker/Traditional- where one side is more completely unlikely to appreciate the other position than this one.

Two issues particularly have bothered me. One is the young earth contention that there cannot be such a thing as theistic evolution. For the young earth movement, the teams seems to be young earthers versus atheistic evolutionists. But this is too simplistic. There are many theistic evolutionists in the diverse traditions of Christianity. We may disagree deeply on the evidence for macroevolution, particularly as it applies to human beings, or on various claim about the nature of the Bible, but to say that there is no such possible Christian position as theistic evolution is criminally inaccurate. (For example, the controversial life and work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin should be noted as a significant advocate of such a position. I did extensive research on the life of Charles Darwin during seminary, and Darwin himself was not an atheist, but a Deistic evolutionist.) Theistic evolution may have its problems, but in the opinion of serious confessional theologians, it does not deny anything essential to the Christian faith.
...
Literally Missing the Point

The young earth creationists believe that Genesis 1 is "literally" a description of creation. I do not. It is this simple disagreement that is the cornerstone of my objection. I believe that Genesis 1 is a prescientific description of Creation intended to accent how Yahweh's relationship with the world stands in stark contrast to the Gods of other cultures, most likely those of Babylon. Textual and linguistic evidence convinces me that this chapter was written to be used in a liturgical (worship) setting, with poetic rhythms and responses understood as part of the text. It tells who made the universe in a poetic and prescientific way. It is beautiful, inspired and true as God's Word.

Does it match up with scientific evidence? Who cares? Here I differ with Hugh Ross and the CRI writers. I do not believe science, history or archaeology of any kind establishes the truthfulness of the scripture in any way. Scripture is true by virtue of God speaking it. If God spoke poetry, or parable, or fiction or a prescientific description of creation, it is true without any verification by any human measurement whatsoever. The freedom of God in inspiration is not restricted to texts that can be interpreted "literally" by historical or scientific judges of other ages and cultures beyond the time the scriptures were written.


from: http://www.internetmonk.com/bible.html


Scripture is inspired if God has, on some level and in some way, directed its production so that it says what he wants it to say. Human beings may conclude that the Bible is inspired if it demonstrates, in its content and its results, a unity of message that cannot be explained by merely human factors. Despite its humanity, despite its diversity, the Bible speaks to us a message that claims to be from God, and is coherent and clear in its claims. Such a view of the Bible grows as the Bible itself becomes aware of the conversation, and aware of the presence of God in the experience of the writers and their communities. But we should never claim that inspiration is a provable proposition. It is an assertion of faith, and that faith comes because of the presence of Jesus as the final Word of the inspired Conversation.

What I will write next is so important, that I cannot assert loudly enough the importance of understanding what I am claiming. The primary reason I believe the Bible is inspired is its presentation of Jesus. Only the activity of God in bringing a final Word into history and into the conversation can cause this conversation to have divine implications totally beyond the human realm of origin and explanation.


from: http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/02/019855.html
Now here is the crucial thing I have to say in this essay: In understanding the Bible, it is far more important that we understand, as best we can, the message and meaning of entire books, and the story told by those books, rather than just having a personal experience with individual verses. The study of Biblical books and the assessment of their story and message is the basic kind of Bible study that is needed in the church, and in preaching/teaching. This entails the study of smaller units of text, but the larger picture/story is the most valuable picture/narrative for the Christian life. I hope and pray nothing more than that my brothers in the ministry could make this connection: Understanding the Bible is understanding the books of the Bible, and how they relate together into one message.


http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
The Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy

where the conversation continues in comments at: http://internetmonk.com/underground/index.php?p=18
some responses: http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/02/inerrancy_again.html
He's right in the sense that many inerrantists believe this. But those inerrantists who believe this confuse their doctrine of inerrancy with their hermeneutics. These folks believe that if you believe in inerrancy you will believe in a particular view of creation. Others have other pet doctrines they link to their doctrine of inerrancy, like women's ordination, eschatology and things like that. You can always tell when you are talking to someone like that because they will switch the terms of the debate when you bring up an objection to their view. If you say you don't believe in a literal six day creation they don't argue the merits of the view itself, they challenge your commitment to biblical inerrancy.

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2004/10/the_reformed_vi.html
http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2004/05/evangelicalism_.html