Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 16:33:43 GMT -8
Originally posted 2/7/06:
The Question of Inerrancy
When it comes to the question of whether the Bible is Inerrant in all the facts it communicates (historical and scientific facts particularly), I strongly recommend we realize the complexity of the issue before choosing a position. There are many different Christian views on what inerrancy might mean and which elements of Scripture it should be applied to. Scripture itself, as we have seen, doesn’t shed much explicit light on the subject, being much more interested in telling it’s story than talking about itself. Still, just because something isn’t explicitly covered in Scripture doesn’t mean the question isn’t important for the believer. I would highly recommend reading a variety of perspectives on the subject, but for now I’d like to address the bottom line:
It has been said by some that acknowledging the possibility of any kind error in the Bible (even of the smallest nature) ‘opens the floodgates’ (so to speak) of Biblical criticism, eventually undermining the whole authority of Scripture and the doctrine of Inspiration.
I’d like to challenge this notion- not because I’m going to go on and demonstrate some error in Scripture, but because I simply don’t think this ‘slippery slope’ dilemma is necessarily valid. Technically speaking, there is nothing saying that God could NOT use and inspire a medium which contains certain errors (of the factual, scientific or historical nature). In fact He does it all the time when He chooses to speak through us in things we say or write. He does not require that we slavishly approach facts with the tenacity of a scientist in all the things we do or say when inspired by His Spirit.
Now, I do recognize a major difference in degree between the inspiration He gives us and the Inspiration He has bestowed on the Scriptures, but I think we might admit, as a bottom line, that there is no reason to automatically throw out our trust in the Scriptures should they not always hold up to certain standards of exactness or accuracy.
This is important for those of us who doubt, or for those of us we witness to who have serious intellectual difficulties with the Scriptures. The absence of doubt on these issues is not a litmus test for salvation any more than ‘having all your theology correct’ is necessarily to begin a relationship with Jesus. Adhering to the doctrine of inerrancy certainly isn’t either. In fact, it is much better to be honest with your reservations than cover them up with blind adherence.
That said, I do believe we can demonstrate the Bible to be amazingly reliable and accurate on many levels. I believe we can show that it is not just the work of mere men. In fact, I think anyone is hard pressed to decisively demonstrate ANY important error, once they have understood how to interpret the Bible, as we shall see.
But there is much in the Bible that’s going to remain ‘fishy’ to the skeptic- even the skeptical believer like me. And no amount of cramming the circular reasoning of inerrancy down someone’s throat is going to assuage that. What will, I believe, is showing that God’s Word is generally reliable. It is its demonstrative reliability in so many areas that gives us trust in the areas where we find ourselves doubtful. We don’t have blind faith in regard to our Scriptures: “the Scriptures are inerrant because they say their inerrant” (a presupposition that leads into endless circular reasoning), but we have been shown their reliability on many things, so we are humble in our approach to the things that give us pause. The former view is more like how a Mormon might approach their Scripture: not caring whether it corresponds to any reality or holds up under intellectual scrutiny. The later view is actually the approach of the New Testament writers themselves: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” “We did not follow cleverly invented stories…” “They searched the Scriptures to see if what we said was true”.
We trust God for the parts that seem sketchy because of the parts that are not. This doesn’t mean we aren’t honest about what we find sketchy. It just means we bank on the Holy Spirit to use the ‘main and plain things’ in Scripture to help illumine us to the rest.
And there comes a point when our trust in the Scripture becomes so strong, that it finally doesn’t matter whether there were exactly 7,000 soldiers at the battle or 1700. It might be that it’s an error, or it might not, it’s just kind of irrelevant.
Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated and helpful in the refinement of this article.
The Question of Inerrancy
When it comes to the question of whether the Bible is Inerrant in all the facts it communicates (historical and scientific facts particularly), I strongly recommend we realize the complexity of the issue before choosing a position. There are many different Christian views on what inerrancy might mean and which elements of Scripture it should be applied to. Scripture itself, as we have seen, doesn’t shed much explicit light on the subject, being much more interested in telling it’s story than talking about itself. Still, just because something isn’t explicitly covered in Scripture doesn’t mean the question isn’t important for the believer. I would highly recommend reading a variety of perspectives on the subject, but for now I’d like to address the bottom line:
It has been said by some that acknowledging the possibility of any kind error in the Bible (even of the smallest nature) ‘opens the floodgates’ (so to speak) of Biblical criticism, eventually undermining the whole authority of Scripture and the doctrine of Inspiration.
I’d like to challenge this notion- not because I’m going to go on and demonstrate some error in Scripture, but because I simply don’t think this ‘slippery slope’ dilemma is necessarily valid. Technically speaking, there is nothing saying that God could NOT use and inspire a medium which contains certain errors (of the factual, scientific or historical nature). In fact He does it all the time when He chooses to speak through us in things we say or write. He does not require that we slavishly approach facts with the tenacity of a scientist in all the things we do or say when inspired by His Spirit.
Now, I do recognize a major difference in degree between the inspiration He gives us and the Inspiration He has bestowed on the Scriptures, but I think we might admit, as a bottom line, that there is no reason to automatically throw out our trust in the Scriptures should they not always hold up to certain standards of exactness or accuracy.
This is important for those of us who doubt, or for those of us we witness to who have serious intellectual difficulties with the Scriptures. The absence of doubt on these issues is not a litmus test for salvation any more than ‘having all your theology correct’ is necessarily to begin a relationship with Jesus. Adhering to the doctrine of inerrancy certainly isn’t either. In fact, it is much better to be honest with your reservations than cover them up with blind adherence.
That said, I do believe we can demonstrate the Bible to be amazingly reliable and accurate on many levels. I believe we can show that it is not just the work of mere men. In fact, I think anyone is hard pressed to decisively demonstrate ANY important error, once they have understood how to interpret the Bible, as we shall see.
But there is much in the Bible that’s going to remain ‘fishy’ to the skeptic- even the skeptical believer like me. And no amount of cramming the circular reasoning of inerrancy down someone’s throat is going to assuage that. What will, I believe, is showing that God’s Word is generally reliable. It is its demonstrative reliability in so many areas that gives us trust in the areas where we find ourselves doubtful. We don’t have blind faith in regard to our Scriptures: “the Scriptures are inerrant because they say their inerrant” (a presupposition that leads into endless circular reasoning), but we have been shown their reliability on many things, so we are humble in our approach to the things that give us pause. The former view is more like how a Mormon might approach their Scripture: not caring whether it corresponds to any reality or holds up under intellectual scrutiny. The later view is actually the approach of the New Testament writers themselves: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” “We did not follow cleverly invented stories…” “They searched the Scriptures to see if what we said was true”.
We trust God for the parts that seem sketchy because of the parts that are not. This doesn’t mean we aren’t honest about what we find sketchy. It just means we bank on the Holy Spirit to use the ‘main and plain things’ in Scripture to help illumine us to the rest.
And there comes a point when our trust in the Scripture becomes so strong, that it finally doesn’t matter whether there were exactly 7,000 soldiers at the battle or 1700. It might be that it’s an error, or it might not, it’s just kind of irrelevant.
Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated and helpful in the refinement of this article.