The Errors of Inerrancy

[AMR]

I just wish inerrancy was a term never used. It usually results in the following sort of retorts:

Inerrant means "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error. Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.

To which I would answer:

Infallibility means without error in the sense of what is being conveyed (Luke 1:1-4; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:16). Scripture attests to the plain fact that it cannot err. I need not try to prove what is attested. God has stated that He will preserve His special revelation, the Bible. I believe that and need not spend time proving the same. Infallibility is the higher standard over notions of inerrancy. Moreover, I couple God's providence to the church in preserving manuscripts, and do not believe that God's providence works outside those boundaries.

We need to distinguish between the proposition above and the way it is stated. According to orthodox Reformed thought, the translations of Scripture made by men of the reformed profession have not been found to err with regard to the sense of Scripture, even though there may be better ways of rendering words and phrases. In respect of words and manner of speech, a translation may be defective, when it is not erroneous as to the sense. The same applies to one's confession of faith.

Or, this sort of statement:
Inerrancy extends only to the Originals, and not to any Translations.

Again, my answer:

Holy Scripture does not teach this. Uninspired, errant men teach this. Our Lord and His apostles referred to copies and translations of holy Scripture when they quoted the Old Testament. They relied on the words of these copies and translations as being inspired and infallible.

Consider that such a statement is contrary to the New Testament witness. Timothy was not raised with the original autograph mss., and yet the apostle Paul explicitly ascribed the quality of theopneustos to the Scriptures which Timothy read. Furthermore, we have Greek translations of Hebrew Scriptures quoted in the New Testament accompanied with the assertion that these are the words of the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of an inspired and infallible word can only be received by anyone today through copies, and only by those who do not know the original languages through translations. Their faith in holy Scripture presupposes what they have is the inspired and infallible word of God.

We know the the originals do not err because God is the author of them.

My answer:
How do you know that, if not from copies? You must have already decided on an "inerrant" text in order to deduce a statement about the originals which does not err from your perspective.

One must have examined the copies and found them to be with error in order to conclude that they are not inerrant. The a priori condition of inerrancy is then applied to an original which simply cannot be examined, and can only be known through the copies. From where does this a priori condition arise if not from the Scriptures themselves? It could only be a rationalist dogma.

Since the doctrine of inerrency is a result of interacting with liberals, how would you challenge someone who claims infallibility but allows for errors in, say, facts of history?

My answer:
I would simply maintain that infallibility extends to the facts of history, but also be careful to emphasize that fallible men are interpreting Scripture.

Scripture is given to be the rule of faith and life, so commitment to an infallible Word should center on what the Scriptures "principally" teach.

For Scripture to be self-attesting one must have a Scripture that attests to itself. In the absence of an inerrant Scripture there can be no inerrant attestation. Inerrant originals must then take their place alongside Plato's ideal forms. Rationalism! Sigh.

In the world of modern textual criticism things have gone amiss. I am not opposed to textual criticism. I embrace it when done aright. Reverent and presuppositional textual criticism involves recognizing that the Bible is not a book like any other, whose preservation and extant copies must be viewed in the light of what the Bible says about itself and its preservation. We know that the original autographs were without error because the Bible tells us so, not because we can prove it empirically; and that proper type of textual criticism involves the believing interpretation of God's providence regarding the preservation of the MSS.

My bottom line:

The two main problems with "inerrancy" are,

1. Using the term instead of "infallibility." The reason why Scripture does not err is because it cannot err. Why does one choose to ignore this fundamental point? To merely say that the Scriptures do not err opens the door to critical investigation of the subject.

2. The tying of "inerrancy" to so-called "originals" only. How can any one know that the originals did not err? The only way of knowing they are inerrant is by means of copies. If these copies are supposed to err there is no basis for saying the originals do not err.

To complain that "infallible" does not make a strong statement in light of liberal affirmations is to give authority to liberals where they do not have any. On that basis we would have to arrive at new words for the whole system of theology?

Best that we use infallible and avoid inerrant.

If you have the time, see Letis' article in the following, in particular the concluding paragraph:

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...4+No+4.pdf

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I just wish inerrancy was a term never used. It usually results in the following sort of retorts:

I guess the question you have to ask is why, why did over 300 Christian leaders sign the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? I mean look at the list of names on the signatory or here. Three names that stand out the most to me personally are: Greg L. Bahnsen, John M. Frame, and R.C. Sproul. The term and statement came as a result of what Dr. Grimstead described as:

"3. Since the 1700’s, some philosophers and writers have claimed that the Bible is false and that Christianity is untrue and unhistorical, and that Jesus is not God and did not rise from the dead, and that there are no moral absolutes which all men are required to obey in this universe. People who believe these things are referred to as theological “liberals”.

4. Since the early part of the 1900’s, a new kind of theological liberal has emerged (called “Neo-orthodoxy”), which believes that the Bible is certainly true where it speaks of things in the invisible/spiritual world (such as heaven, angels, God and the afterlife) in those areas of life which are not able to be proven to be true or false, but that the Bible does not need to be true when it speaks about matters of history or science connected to this time and space world where facts may be verified or falsified. This is pure foolishness since the “Neo-Orthodox” person is asked to believe that what cannot be proven to be true or false in the Bible is to be wholeheartedly believed, but that when the Bible speaks of those areas of life which may be proven to be true or false, it can be full of errors and falsehoods. Why should I believe that the unprovable things in any book are true, if the provable things in that same book are proven to be false?

5. 17 of the 19 Articles of Affirmation and Denial in this Inerrancy of the Bible Document deal with our committee’s answers to 17 Neo-Orthodox falsehoods now being taught in many so-called Evangelical colleges and seminaries. That is why this document was written.

6. It has been proven by the personal history of many lives that whenever a person stops believing in the Bible’s total truth about history and science as well as its statements about the invisible world, that person usually soon begins doubting and then disbelieving in the basic, foundational doctrines of basic Christianity which make it different from Atheism, Islam, Hinduism and Communism." SOURCE

So a "new" (not per say) kind of theological response came as a response to a new kind of theological error. The OP is just another example of theological liberalism as described in the quote above. It came about much the same creeds came about throughout Church history, that is in response to error.

 

[Radagast]

Any thoughts on this article?

Yes. It's garbage.

 

[JimmyH]

The late great expository preacher , the Reverend Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, was asked if he would debate a skeptic in a public forum. He politely declined. Later, in one of his books, Preaching and Preachers, he explained that it is the Word of God. He had too much respect for it to 'cast his pearls before swine'. (my paraphrase)

In his introduction to "Studies In The Sermon On The Mount" he begins by saying that,

"There is nothing more important in the Christian life than the way in which we approach the Bible and the way in which we read it. It is our textbook, it is our only source, it is our only authority.

We know nothing about God and about the Christian life in a true sense apart from the Bible. We can draw various deductions from nature (and possibly from various mystical experiences) by which we can arrive at a belief in a supreme Creator. But I think it is agreed by most Christians and it has been traditional throughout the long history of the Church that we have no authority save this Book.

We cannot rely solely upon subjective experiences because there are evil spirits as well as good spirits' there are counterfeit experiences. Here, in the Bible is our sole authority."

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The late great expository preacher , the Reverend Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, was asked if he would debate a skeptic in a public forum. He politely declined. Later, in one of his books, Preaching and Preachers, he explained that it is the Word of God. He had too much respect for it to 'cast his pearls before swine'. (my paraphrase)

In his introduction to "Studies In The Sermon On The Mount" he begins by saying that,

"There is nothing more important in the Christian life than the way in which we approach the Bible and the way in which we read it. It is our textbook, it is our only source, it is our only authority.

We know nothing about God and about the Christian life in a true sense apart from the Bible. We can draw various deductions from nature (and possibly from various mystical experiences) by which we can arrive at a belief in a supreme Creator. But I think it is agreed by most Christians and it has been traditional throughout the long history of the Church that we have no authority save this Book.

We cannot rely solely upon subjective experiences because there are evil spirits as well as good spirits' there are counterfeit experiences. Here, in the Bible is our sole authority."

Sola Scriptura is such an important doctrine, so fundamental to why we are Protestant, rather than Catholic or EO. Discussions of Sola Scriptura sometimes get into canon of Scripture discussion. Praise God for loads of great resources for both!

 

[FireDragon76]

I think inerrancy is the doctrine of the devil, but the argument in the OP is a lousy one. It's true that there are some uncertainties in the text, but not enough to cause any practical problems. The OP is looking for some kind of absolute that doesn't appear in real life, and isn't necessary. Of course you can argue that that's what inerrancy is about, but most people don't take it that far.

Part of faith as a Protestant is having faith that God speaks to us through the text we have, even with the variant textual traditions. And that was really the point of the early Reformers. At least in the Lutheran tradition, the Bible is God's Word because it tells us about Jesus and how to be saved (through faith in the Gospel). That Word could exist in any number of other ways, other than 66 approved books of the conventional Protestant Bible.

What the folks at Princeton tried to do in the 19th century, was make faith a certainty in the face of the challenges of modernity, but that sort of certainty is illusory. But Christianity is not primarily a system of thought, it is a relationship with the invisible, ineffable God mediated through Word and Sacrament.

 

[FireDragon76]

I know a man who said I don't need the Bible, because I know the Holy Spirit. He is now serving a life sentence for walking into a church and killing 4 people, He told me the Holy Spirit told him to do it, because they were false Christians.

We have more than just an "errant" Bible, though, to know the Holy Spirit does not inspire that behavior. The witness of the Christian community itself on the whole, and natural law are also a witness in matters of ethics

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That Word could exist in any number of other ways, other than 66 approved books of the conventional Protestant Bible.

Interesting statement, I'd be curious what other ways you have in mind. One of the more useful and recent resources I discoverd a couple of years ago is a book by Dr. Michael J. Kruger entitled "Canon Revisited". What makes the book unique is its approach to the canon, rather than the traditional historical method, the author takes a presuppositional approach. In this is recognized God is self revealing, Christ is self-authenticating, and the canon is self authenticating. I could say more but spoilers are rarely fun.

What the folks at Princeton tried to do in the 19th century, was make faith a certainty in the face of the challenges of modernity, but that sort of certainty is illusory.

The lineage of Hodges's and Warfield? Interesting thing about faith and certainty, they go hand in hand, one does not exist to the exclusion of the other.

 

[FireDragon76]

I do think presuppositionalism is an improvement in some ways, but the overly intellectual approach to Christian faith is misguided in the first place.

The mystical and experiential aspects of faith have been stripped out of much of the formal, scholastic theology of Protestantism. Luther said a theologian was made by reading, meditation, and trial (tentatio).

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I do think presuppositionalism is an improvement in some ways, but the overly intellectual approach to Christian faith is misguided in the first place.

Framed in that manner I tend to agree in that our faith is one of heart, mind, and soul. There should be a balance in the Christian life but for people like me, it is a constant struggle...neglecting the emotions for want of feeding the mind. Presuppositonalism is more of a method, but it is distinguished from traditional Christian rationalism, evidentialism, fideism, etc. The way I view it though, presuppositionalism is a kind of framework or vehicle where reason, evidences, etc. are welcome and cohesive or integrated, because the method begins with the Christian worldview as a whole, with Christ as Lord from the start.

The mystical and experiential aspects of faith have been stripped out of much of the formal, scholastic theology of Protestantism. Luther said a theologian was made by reading, meditation, and trial (tentatio).

I understand what you mean and there is merit, I think the evangelical movement as a whole, was intended as a correction to overly intellectual, scholastic theology, however it ended up on many fronts towards a Christian anti-intellectualism of an unhealthy sort, which also paved the way for a post modernism of unhealthy uncertainty, and in the same breath, secularists became the intellectual elites, invading the educational institutions, even those founded by Christians, on Christian principals.

 

[sdowney717]

Every verse with the word 'scripture'
BibleGateway - : scripture

All they had in Jesus's day regarding scripture was also copies of copies of copies. The same today.
God made sure His word was recorded and maintained in the scriptures, and honestly there is little difference from earlier extant manuscripts to what is in the bible today. To say otherwise implies a God who cares nothing for His own scriptures, which makes no sense at all. If you don't believe the scriptures, which speak about Christ, then how can you believe in Him?

John 20:30-31 New King James Version (NKJV)
That You May Believe
30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;

31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.