After a lively discussion we had last Saturday, here are some notes I took from reading Millard Erickson's Christian Theology.
If the Bible says it, can I believe it?
Inerrancy Defined:
The idea of complete dependability of Scripture has been historically held by the church.
Augustine wrote: "It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the Sacred Book. If you once admit into such a high sanctuary [or authority] one false statement there will not be left a single statement of these books."
And if church history is the acid test of doctrine, we can see the church's mission and faithfulness to Christ's deity has suffered whenever biblical inerrancy is abandoned.
So it is not a Western or modern issue.
Again, the pre-modern, 'North African' Augustine would say
"I have learned to yield with respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."
Brother Martin (Luther) would concur
"But everyone indeed knows that they, at times [the fathers], have erred as men will. Therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture which has never erred..."
"Whoever is so bold that he ventures to accuse God of fraud and deception in a single word, and does so willfully again and again after he has been warned and instructed once or twice, will likewise certainly venture to accuse God of fraud and deception in all of His words. Therefore, it is true, absolutely and without exception, that everything is believed or nothing is believed."
Belief in inerrancy is not inductive conclusion arrived at after examining all the passages of the bible. It springs naturally from the idea that Scripture has been inspired by God who does not make mistakes.
In Matt 19:5, even words of the author of Genesis 2:24, though not attributed to God, are quoted by Jesus as words that God 'said'. (Grudem, pg 75)
Yes, the biblical authors are not historians per se, they are also theologians.
But their theological views are based on God's work in history.
God inspired not only the record of instructions and revelatory events, but also the authors' interpretation of those events as well.
If the Bible says it, can I believe it?
Inerrancy Defined:
The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time of writing, in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.
The idea of complete dependability of Scripture has been historically held by the church.
Augustine wrote: "It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the Sacred Book. If you once admit into such a high sanctuary [or authority] one false statement there will not be left a single statement of these books."
And if church history is the acid test of doctrine, we can see the church's mission and faithfulness to Christ's deity has suffered whenever biblical inerrancy is abandoned.
So it is not a Western or modern issue.
Again, the pre-modern, 'North African' Augustine would say
"I have learned to yield with respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."
Brother Martin (Luther) would concur
"But everyone indeed knows that they, at times [the fathers], have erred as men will. Therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture which has never erred..."
"Whoever is so bold that he ventures to accuse God of fraud and deception in a single word, and does so willfully again and again after he has been warned and instructed once or twice, will likewise certainly venture to accuse God of fraud and deception in all of His words. Therefore, it is true, absolutely and without exception, that everything is believed or nothing is believed."
Belief in inerrancy is not inductive conclusion arrived at after examining all the passages of the bible. It springs naturally from the idea that Scripture has been inspired by God who does not make mistakes.
In Matt 19:5, even words of the author of Genesis 2:24, though not attributed to God, are quoted by Jesus as words that God 'said'. (Grudem, pg 75)
Yes, the biblical authors are not historians per se, they are also theologians.
But their theological views are based on God's work in history.
God inspired not only the record of instructions and revelatory events, but also the authors' interpretation of those events as well.
Comments
My question is "MUST someone who believes the Bible is inspired, trustworthy and authoritative formulate their understanding of the Bible in the language of "Inerrancy"?"
Personally i dun bother about the term 'inerrancy' itself, if there is a better word to replace it tat captures the idea and leaves out the historical baggage. (as per Mark Noll?)
But MUST the concept itself be irrelevant?
The concept of inerrancy is precious to us bcos ultimately if Bible makes mistakes about God's ways and purposes, how confident could we that its instructions in how we ought to think and live are trustworthy?
check these comments:
"To interpret the Bible according to a wooden literalism fails precisely to attend to the kinds of claims Scripture makes. To read every sentence of the Bible as if it were referring to something in he world, or to a timeless truth, may be to misread much of Scripture. Just as readers need to be sensitive to metaphor (few would react to Jesus’ claim in John 10:9 ‘I am the door’ by searching for a handle) so readers must be sensitive to literary genre (e.g. to the literary context of biblical statements)."
"Is every word in Scripture literally true? The problem with this question is its incorrect (and typically unstated) assumption that ‘literal truth’ is always literalistic -- a matter of referring to history or to the ‘facts’ of nature. It is just such a faulty assumption -- that the Bible always states facts -- that leads certain well-meaning defenders of inerrancy desperately to harmonize what appear to be factual or chronological discrepancies in the Gospels"
Your questions aren't nuanced enough.
"Are There Errors in Bible?" - sure what kind of errors ... a plain no .. doesn't help (because there's more to the discussion). Vanhoozer's little discussion here is helpful.
"The Reformers similarly affirmed the truthfulness of the Bible. There is some debate among scholars whether Luther and Calvin limited Scripture's truthfulness to matters of salvation, conveniently overlooking errors about lesser matters. It is true that Luther and Calvin are aware of apparent discrepancies in Scripture and that they often speak of 'errors'. However, a closer analysis seems to indicate that the discrepancies and errors are consistently attributed to copyists and translators, not to the human authors of Scripture, much less to the Holy Spirit, its divine author. Calvin was a ware that Paul's quotations of the Old Testament (e.g. Romans 10:6 and Dt 30:12) were not always exact, nor always exegetically sound, but he did not infer that Paul had thereby made an error. On the contrary, Calvin notes that Paul is not giving the words of Moses different sense so much as applying them to his treatment of he subject at hand. Indeed, Calvin explicitly denies the suggestion that Paul distorts Moses' words."
In short, even for those who use the terms infallible as well as inerrancy. Some have nuanced it tremendously and stating the doctrine of Scripture "positively" makes a big difference --> Thus, my issue about how we formulate our understandings.
I'll close with Vanhoozer again.
"The Bible’s own understanding of truth stresses reliability. God’s Word is true because it can be relied upon --relied upon to make good its claim and to accomplish its purpose. We may therefore speak of the Bible’s promises, commands, warnings, etc. as being ‘true,’ inasmuch as they too can be relied upon. Together, the terms inerrancy and infallibility remind us that the Word of God is wholly reliable not only when it speaks, but also when it does the truth."
Wat a coincidence that I'm reading Vanhoozer on 'Trinity in a pluralistic society'.. His views on scripture carry enormous weight in my book!
Does that mean that you are comfortable to hold a 'nuanced' and 'superior' articulation of inerrancy ala Vanhoozer's? :)
If so, then we should avoid making blanket statement like inerrancy is irrelevant in our context ler... maybe, we cud be more careful and say *some* superior views of inerrancy are relevant? :)
hehehe... thanks for the correction though. I hope that a short blog post here is not taken as an exhaustive treatment on the topic. If it is, I agree it is too simplistic as there are two more drafts in progress as we speak!
Be it as it may be, I believe that your point abt 'wooden literalism' is taken care of in our definition that the Bible ***when correctly interpreted**** is fully truthful in all that it affirms.
But point taken and I wanna thank you for going out of 'pacifism' mode into active engagement here, for I do hope this discussion wud shed more light into areas of 'convergence' and 'divergence'.
If 'inerrancy' is understood as taking the bible with wooden literalism, then I'm NOT an inerrantist! hahaha... (to be charitable, i dun think Grudem's view is so naive either)
But I'm most happy of the convergence we're seeing here if you'd consider a 'superior' Vanhoozer's view of inerrancy is at least 'relevant' to our Msian context!
Don't you agree?
Are you implying that there are *some* quarters who believe that "...inerrancy is irrelevant..." in the Msian context?
Perhaps there is discomfort with the term inerrancy and its (ahem) Western baggage but I do find the alternate explanations of "reliability" and "infallibility" and (pardon me) "authority" no more helpful especially in a country where there is an official religion.
While they on the other side are espousing total, literal, inerrancy especially in matters of science - which - can be very attractive to the unsuspecting, I believe that some *careful* restatement of what we mean to be "reliable" or even (God forbid!) "inerrant" on our part will help in the debate.
There must be some "common ground" that we can reach so that we will not appear like laughing stock to those on the other side of the divide.
Is this possible?
I have been wondering too... remember the first time we met at the interfaith forum in UM?
Isn't it interesting that the Muslim, Buddhist and even the Hindu - when push comes to shove - all try their best to defend their scriptures from any historical or scientific errors? Every single one! Even the Hindu speaker we nicknamed Derrida claim tat God verbally dictated some phrases to them...
And Mr Tan (differing from the buddhist-bultmann in melaka) boldly
claimed (citing Bertrand Russell again) that the buddhist scripture
predicted evolution and contains no scientific errors at all, hinting that genesis had some in the process... :)
Need we mention bro Shah? :)
Frankly, I think not making errors is a necessary but insufficient evidence of 'divine inspiration'... Just bcos i write an error-free, accurate science or
history textbook doesn't prove I have been inspired by God??!!
Yet these Asian-Malaysian-Eastern-nonWest folks realise that
whenever their scripture affirms something that pertain to
science/history it must not make mistake... but reliable!
The odd thing is, while our malaysian neighbors are stressing and value-ing the necessity of their scriptures being free from
errors/mistakes, we find some Christians who are more than ready to adopt 'errancy' or at least, treat inerrancy as irrelevant...
We need to be sensitive to our context, my frens...
imho, postmodernism and postfoundationalism are also colonial imports from the West, ma?
From my sensing of things in our local context, I agree tat it's probably a tactical suicide to give up a 'superior' view of inerrancy la... :)
1. I'm not comfortable with the term "inerrancy". But, I'm happy that there are more "refined" discussion on the matter through people like Vanhoozer.
2. I'm ok and respect people would want to use the term .. But feel it's important to make it a sub-catergory on the discussion on the doctrine of Scripture and revelation rather as a main catergory (even as a litmus text of one's orthodoxy.) I think the Scriptures we have is primarily a theological document (which doesn't mean that it's not scientific or not historical - but then even these "scientific" and "historical" biases are often superimposed on the texts!) The catergories of "authority", "truthfulness", "reliability" do offer a more possitive way forward at least for our internal discussions.
3. I think our "debate on inerrancy" especially in Malaysian evangelicalism (at least discussed here) is shaped much by western evangelical debates and formulations (well, we are limited in resources and still depend much on western scholarly material). perhaps as you've indicated in our interaction with how people of other faiths view their scriptures we would be "challenged" to formulate our understanding and presentation. Further more, "correctly interpreted" by who and based on what assumptions (My Luther Bug is itching here!)? That would move us into "hermeneutics" which perhaps is more of where our solutions may be discovered.
4. In terms of relating to the "others". I think the better tactical move in "conversations" and "dialogues" with other faiths and their views of Scripture is on the message they see their scriptures s well as their religion convey (cf. the last forum I went for at UM moved in that direction.
5. So, now ... from your description of the presenters above - that people of other religions are using the same tactic we've used to battle Science in the west. So, now we have the Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and Christian all claiming "proofs" of divine origin. Where do you think this will lead to? This is an interesting development on their end especially for the Buddist and Hindu faiths. My question is why did they make this "move"?
6. Thus, I don't find focusing or fixation on "inerrancy" (i.e. free from errors/mistakes) to be that relevant overall in the schemes of things. It's necesary to clarify when they point out what our neighbors see as "errors" or "mistakes" (of course, I;d ask what are they?) - thus, the work of apologetics right?
7. I have confidence in the "inherent" :-) truthfulness in the Scriptures as the library of documents (we consider canon)and external and internal work of the Spirit ... and thus, the priority of the "good news" being heard first (trusting in faith much that can happen), rather than ... trying to convince people this is "accurate news" (which may unconsciously give too much weight resting our faith on science and history - defined much by enlightenment impulses)- of course, this is more complex than this comment can convey.
8. as for context, the critique of "postmodern" thinkers as well as those advocating "postfoundational" moves (cf. Stanley Grenz, LeRon Shults) has to me brought to my awareness how deeply intertwined much modern evangelical thought (as well as the "liberals") is with the struggle with modernity (I think this is important for us "evangelicals" here in Malaysia to take note). Bishop Hwa Yung argues along the same line in his "Mangos and Bananas" piece. I've heard from people in the NECF research commission say, "we are no friend of modernity". I think there's this engagement DR. NKW wrote which didn't seel as much as purpose-drive life! I sense there's a "fear" of people buying into "postmodernism" (whatever that means to different people "from relativism to pluralism") uncritically (personally, I see the need to anchor the discussion on postmodernism better in terms of its reaction against the modern west). Like it or not, we get the "debris of modernity" here in asia (to use Sherman's quote) and the "dust of postmodernity" (in some form or another). I think each generation needs to engage our times and the voices that are "speaking" out (and that depends on who are we listening to. A little side track, The little I know about "postcolonial" thought is that what those engaging "postmodernity" is doing "self-critically" for the west, we are doing as the generation "after the colonial" era in the mess of globalization in terms of breaking out of a "colonial" mindset of the past and a "neo-colonial" mindset of today(which is deeper that just buying Malaysian products *grin* which is a good start). That's just about context.
9. I think I went a little too long ..and may have rambled. Back to our topic, I'll submit this link for your reference:-)for another perspective http://apu.edu/~CTRF/articles/2001_articles/perry.html (more specific to our discussion on inerrancy).
now for some mental rest
File not found dude!
Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate: How Modern Philosophy Shaped the Evangelical View of Scripture
Thanks for the 9 theses posted on Wittenberg door! hehe...
I'm happy tat you approve of Vanhoozer's refined and superior discussion of inerrancy :) So we have convergence here! Let's hope that even this superior inerrancy is not irrelevant or useless :D
Like you, I'm not big on the term 'inerrancy' too. It's the concept I wanna protect... Out of fear? maybe... Fear of God, maybe..
If there is a better term, I dun mind dropping 'inerrancy' :)
I wud rather use the biblical term that God's word is 'true' if it's possible. Alas, modern theologians dun allow us the luxury. Words like reliability, authority, revelation may not convey the idea that the Bible is true is all that it affirms. Like the early christans, sometimes we need to use new nonbiblical words like 'Trinity' to teach a biblical idea.
More info: Shall we use the term Inerrancy?
If it's true, perhaps secularism is not too far from home, eh?
But there may be a 'premodern' explanation. Our Eastern/non-colonial Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist frens believe in their scriptural inerrancy *because*...
...if God(s) or enlightened beings are indeed *inherently* truthful, then he/it/they just dun mess up and make mistakes in what they teach. It's that simple.
Thank God, we dun need to wait until Descartes is born to realise that!
So I am not comfy with the 'guilt by association' stuffs abt inerrancy as *merely* a product of modern philosophy. (after all, 'errancy' and 'pomo debris' may just be a new kind of colonialism?)
Ya, we do have to respond to modern challenges just as the Nicene fathers had to respond to new challenges and use unwieldy words like 'ousia' etc...
But it seems odd, if not anachronistic, to think of that historic view of scripture held by the church fathers, Bro Martin(!) and Calvin to be modernistic.
See Did the church historically believe in 'inerrancy'?
PS: Amen! We're no fren of modernism, postmodernism is not our bedfellow either!
In my limited, and some might say skewed readings of the matter (principle text: Prof. Carl Raschke's 'The Next Reformation'), it appears that there are *some* (or most?) folks who seem to host some sort of distancing from modern philosophy. But as Hedonese have pointed out, surely there must be a realisation that a position reached at postmodernity itself is a product of modern philosophy and by distancing oneself from all things "modern philosophy" could be self-defeating?
(I could go on as to mention Prof. Carl Raschke's book seems like a thinly veiled argument for "noncessationists"; I use the term to avoid the usual term that holds negative connotations for such who hold that position; but why hasn't most Emergents come to the logical conclusion, i.e. conversion into a noncessationist position?)
But back to our discussion; if an infinite God "speaks" in error, then that God is not infinite. There cannot be such at thing as half-way there, or theological-only inerrancy. And that is the thrust of the issue. A focus on say, "authority/reliability/insertwordhere of the Bible" will not be able to escape the simple philosophical truth that if there is any "error", its authority/reliabiliy/insertwordhere will hang in doubt.
On our friends of other religious persuasions who, bowing to the pressures of secularism, using science as some sort of "proof" for their Weltanschauungen, it is because a god who is truthful must be truthful in all things as that revealed in their scriptures. Has anyone wondered why there has not been an adoption so far on their part, for lack of a better term, "limited inerrancy" ala James Orr? Ditto.
I do not suppose they came to such a position by reading western philosophy, and especially B.B. Warfield! As Hedonese has been hinting, it does not take Descartes for one to realise that.
And the article which Hedonese linked to, has demonstrated to some extend of the "premodern" adoption of inerrancy. Thus is it not born out of a modernist philosophy.
Let's not, for want of pursuing a politically correct, and fashionable agenda especially in light of the present political climate where almost everything Western must be disdained, deny the relevance of inerrancy. I do not suppose being "postcolonial" entails that sort of conclusion. Anti-Western hegemony at all cost?
A parallel I see: Just because one other major Semitic faith is coming out with a, so what they term, a genuine philosophy based on the tenets of their faith, (because Western philosophy is man-made, not God-made) surely, that does not mean we should follow suit? I am certain that being "postcolonial" is not a form of racism, i.e. anti-Westerners, or am I wrong?
Maybe this post on Postcolonial Orthodoxy will shed some lite? :)
'post' in not necessarily 'anti'...
it's 'moving beyond'...'growing out of'... dadada... I'm very comfortable with Dr NKW's "Doing Responsive Theology" stuffs, so if that's wat PO is all abt it, I'd jump on the bandwagon la!
I just dun see how 'inerrancy being irrelevant' is relevant for this noble project of contextualisation, ar...
Hi Sivin,
Like you, I think interfaith dialogue should focus on how each religion answers the big questions of life as well as addressing how a multiracial Msia can live in harmony and social justice :)
Proclamation should go first in the power of HS, amen! Apologetics should come only when people ask... ie the Q&A session ar...
Another convergence, yippee! (not concession...)
Unfortunately u missed the final edition of the UM forum that focus on Scripture where the chief concerns were textual transmission, contradictions, fulfilled prophecies, canon, criteria of falsification and a plethora of so called modern concerns. Maybe next time?
I wish these questions will go away... I wish we cud tell our frens, "Dun ask these 'modern' questions la... Listen to my story first!"... I wish it's a glorified eschaton we live in...
Yet some of the questions our frens ask are fair... bcos, after all, as Christians we dun give overdue emphasis on the Bible as 'story' in the genre of the Aesop's Fairy Tales. Like u said, they are historical too.
So we gotta 'deal with it' rather than widening the 'gap' from the other by infusing some alien, Western post-foundationalism tat they never dreamed of, ler.
Lastly, the question of bible interpretation is different from the question of bible's truthfulness...
I can have 1001 interpretive views but if the text itself is full of errors, it simply does not matter which view I take... wat good is a correct interpretation of an incorrect text? :)
But a word abt the goal of bible interpretation is to discover the intended meaning of the authors and apply it in today's context...
Wat if there are differing interpretations? I'd frame the question differently bcos we'd never know which is a better view if we ask "Who u listen to?"
Rather we may ask "Wat is View A saying?"
For example, someone from a developed city may tell us that the earth is not flat while someone from the jungles may say it is! How do we decide who is correct?
Not by asking who said it... ie the city boy's knowledge come from Enlightenment/modern science while the jungle boy's knowledge come from creation myth/grandfather soty
Knowing these stuffs help us to understand the psychology and the process of how they acquire their views... but we'd never know if one of them is 'correct' unless we investigate 'what' they say, in addition to 'who said it' :)
Thanks for a stimulating dialogue!